--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:57:28 -0600 (CST)
>From: Sue Ann Lewandowski <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: cataloging question <fwd>
 
 
John,
 
As a cataloger and map librarian, I like option (1) better than the other
two.  The reason that I don't prefer option (3) is that those holdings
fields usually have serious space (and other) limitations.  As a library
PATRON, I like option (2) because it's user-friendly and there when I am
looking for the map segment that I want.  With my cataloger/ML hat on
again for a moment, I don't like option (2) all by itself because if that
index gets lost, you're back to square one.  So, I guess that I would try
to do both (1) and (2), citing the index map in the bib record plus
adding the detailed contents note.
 
Sue Ann
 
  .
 }
{  Sue Ann Lewandowski, MLS
.} N209 Love Library, Cataloging
{  University of Nebraska--Lincoln
 } Lincoln NE  68588-0410
{. 402-472-3545
 } [log in to unmask]
  {
   } . .
 
 
[snip]
> (1) Describe the coordinates and orientation of all 12 sheets in a contents
> note.
>
> (3) Stuff this same information into MARC holdings fields for the
> individual sheets.
>
> (2) Leave this information out of the record, but draw a small index map,
> give it an inventory number and a catalog record, and file it together with
> the 12 sheets.  Cite this index map in a local note on the main
> bibliographic record.
>
>
> I'd like comments from those who use libraries not only from catalog
> librarians.  Which would be the easier system to use?
>
>
> John Buelow
>
> [log in to unmask]
--- End Forwarded Message ---