------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Cataloging question, edit record, or create new record?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:32:08 -0400
From: Grabach, Kenneth A. Mr. <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]>
Thanks, Paige. Your exegesis of the rules is clear.
In the case of these maps, however, there seems to me no clear 'yes or no' answer. The records that already existed for these maps use titles taken from the covers. 246 fields refer to the margin titles that represent the only titles for the maps I have in hand. Also, the ISBN numbers come from the panels of the cover, but are not printed on the sheets. Description notes refer to other statements that are found on the cover panels.
While the only change in the 300 field would have been to remove in $c the "folded to _ x _ cm.", there would be the 245 field to change and added titles to remove, and several notes. There has been precedent in the past for earlier editions of at least one of the maps to be cataloged with separate records for each version. There is just so little for a user, if both versions were available, to regard them as the same maps, that I decided to create new records for them.
Thanks to Tami and to Paige for extending the discussion. I think it is very worthwhile, indeed.
Ken
Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
Maps Librarian Phone: 513-529-1726
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Maps, Air Photo & GIS Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maps-L Moderator
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cataloging question, edit record, or create new record?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Cataloging question, edit record, or create new record?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:05:27 -0400
From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
References: <[log in to unmask]>
And I have to respectfully disagree with Tami's assessment. In OCLC's
"When to Create a New Record" generally speaking new records are created
when there is evidence of a different edition in hand from that of the
existing record."
*Guidelines for all formats*
When comparing records, closely examine the bibliographic description
(fields 245 <http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/2xx/245.shtm> through 5xx
<http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/5xx/default.shtm>) and important
fixed-field elements (e.g., /Form/, /Dates/).
*Different editions*
* Input separate records to represent different editions of
bibliographic works. See AACR2, appendix D, for the definition of
an edition.
* Input separate records to represent different issues of an edition
whenever there are significant differences in the description.
Significant differences are discussed under 250 edition
statement a in section 4.2, Field-by-Field Guidelines for New
Records
<http://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/input/default.shtm#CHDJFJHA>."
but of course other reasons to create a new record lie within whether
one wishes to catalog a mulitpart item comprehensively or as individual
pieces. In addition, When to Create... specifies
"*Cataloging rules*
* Differences resulting from changes in cataloging rules do *not*
justify a new record.
* Do *not* create a new record solely because of disagreement with
the choice of main entry. Except for serials, do *not* consider
access points (fields 1xx, 7xx, etc.) when deciding whether to
create a new record."
and also,
"When you input new records, you should exercise conservatism. If you
are transcribing retrospective cataloging copy, be especially
conservative because the item is *not* usually in hand. *If in doubt,
use an existing record."*
When you go and look at the field-by-field guidelines anything to do
with the 300 field is most generally do not allow one to create a new
record. Even the statement at the end of the 300$a section that says
"Specific differences in the extent of item (other than those noted)
justify a new record" is specific to the number of main maps and sheets
involved (extent), not to the presence or absence of covers (which if
detached could in some cases be considered accompanying material).
This document does reference "Differences Between, Changes Within:
Guidelines on When to Create a New Record":
*"Differences Between, Changes Within*
In 2004, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services
published /Differences Between, Changes Within: Guidelines on When to
Create a New Record/, which supplements the descriptive cataloging
rules. The document provides guidance to the cataloger who has found
copy that is a close or near match to the item in hand about whether to
use that copy or to create a new bibliographic record.
Differences Between, Changes Within (DBCW) is a valuable supplement to
this chapter, but does not replace it. On most major points, the two
documents agree. There are, however, several areas in which OCLC,
because of the unique cooperative nature of WorldCat and its application
of a master record concept, has chosen to differ. These areas are noted
below. OCLC requests that users follow OCLC practice in these instances."
I think I understand where Tami is looking in DBCW and has interpreted
from it, in the tables at the end for Area 5, cartographic materials are
specifically mentioned in relation to "Other physical characteristics",
which would be 300$b. Information that goes into this subfield area
according to AACR2R are:
layout ("both sides" or "back to back")
production method (blueline print or similar)
number of maps, etc., in an atlas (obvious)
colour (if present, has to be multicolor)
medium ("hand col." or if rendered in something like ink or pencil)
material (material other than paper, such as silk, wood, vellum, etc.)
mounting (map has been mounted on some kind of backing after production)
However, if I understand Ken's email correctly, we're talking about a
difference between how the maps have been issued, the company has
created their maps to be sold either as flat "wall maps" or folded into
covers. The conundrum then becomes whether or not the person or library
who has purchased the flat maps is missing data that might only be on
the covers from which the map is folded into (a cousin to this situation
is when those covers that arrived were glued onto the map itself,
subsequently pulled apart and the cover tossed -- so many times needed
data for matching purposes has been disposed of! grrrr!).
Bottom line is that if the cartographic content of both versions of the
map is the same then one does not have a different edition and therefore
is not justified in creating a record (in my humble opinion). I see this
as being more important than the physical-ness involved (so long as the
physical change is not of/for the map itself), and this advice then also
follows OCLC's rubric stated above, "*If in doubt, use an existing record."
*Paige
At 12:32 PM 10/14/2009, Maps-L Moderator wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Cataloging question, edit record, or create new record?
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:55:32 -0600
> From: Tami Morse McGill <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> References: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> I think you're right; you need new records. Even if everything else in
> the records match -- scale, dimensions, even ISBN -- you have different
> things, since your maps don't have covers.
>
> If you want an authoritative source, "Differences Between, Changes
> Within" says that any difference in physical details is a major change
> for cartographic materials, and requires a new record. So see, your
> instincts are good!
>
> Tami Morse McGill
> Catalog Librarian
> University of Wyoming Libraries
> [log in to unmask] < mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [log in to unmask] < mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Maps-L Moderator <[log in to unmask]
> < mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: cataloging question, edit record, or create new record?
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:50:41 -0400
> From: Grabach, Kenneth A. Mr. <[log in to unmask]
> < mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask] < mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <[log in to unmask] < mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
>
> Hello, map catalogers.
>
> This question is one that nags me from time to time, and I'm never
> sure what is the right approach.
>
> Three maps I have purchased, by Gizimaps of Budapest. Each is a
> wall map format, purchased flat, without an attached cover. Each is
> gradient tint version, one of Tibet (2007), one of India (2007), and
> one of Silk Road countries (2008). There are records in WorldCat
> for what is probably the same version as each of these, but
> published as folded maps inside attached covers, with cover titles
> and ISBN numbers.
>
> I am uncertain whether it is more appropriate (1) to create new
> records for the wall map versions, or (2) to edit the records for
> the folded map versions. Option (1) recognizes that the physical
> format of the maps is different. Option (2) recognizes that the
> intellectual content is the same for each title.
>
> The question is, To describe the work, or to describe the published
> iteration? As I phrase it this way, I am inclined to make new
> records for these, but I wanted to see what others think, or how you
> have acted in similar situations, yourself.
>
>
> Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]
> < mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Maps Librarian Phone: 513-529-1726
> Miami University Libraries
> Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA
|
