================================================
MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
================================================
Subject: Re: MAPS-L: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction
of an electronic map
Date: Tues, 25 Oct 2005
From: Mary Larsgaard <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Organization: UCSB Map & Imagery Lab, Library
To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
Depends on library cataloging policy;
some libraries use one record for
the original and the scan - and technically,
one could put in a 590 field noting that
one has scanned and plotted the map -
and then make a holdings record for
the plot, with the last line of the call #
being "plot."
If library cataloging policy is that
each physical object is to be cataloged
separately, then this would mean
3 bibliographic records.
Mary larsgaard
Angie Cope, AGSL wrote:
> ================================================
> MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
> ================================================
> RE MAPS-L: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction of an
> electronic map
> DA Mon, 24 Oct 2005
> FR Angie
> TO Maps-L
>
> How are other libraries handling scanned or plotted maps? So, for
> example, you have a map that is badly damaged. You carefully scan it,
> retain the digital image file and plot out a copy for daily use. Now you
> have three things: 1)the original, 2) the plot of the original and 3)
> the tif or jpg of the original. How are you handling this in your
> catalogs/MARC records?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Angie
>
>
>
> Angie Cope, AGSL wrote:
>
>>
>> ================================================
>> MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
>> ================================================
>>
>> Subject: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction of an
>> electronic map
>> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:08:28 -0700
>> From: Matthew Parsons <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Thanks to all who replied to my cataloging question. To summarize:
>>
>> All were in general consensus that one should catalog (describe) the
>> reproduction and make a note about the original. Basis for this
>> reasoning
>> is primarily from Cartographic Materials, 2nd ed., chapter 11 regarding
>> "Facsimiles, Photocopies, and Other Reproductions."
>>
>> Excerpts from responses:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> " ... Yes, you can extrapolate what's in the Map Cataloging
>> Manual and CartMtls manual to what you have in hand.
>>
>> Overview:
>> When AACR2 went into effect in the early 1980s,
>> almost everyone except the map catalogers elected
>> not to follow the AACR2 rules which were always
>> to catalog the piece in hand, and when you had a reproduction
>> to describe the reproduction, putting details about the
>> original into notes. This works very well with
>> map repros - how often are we able to find
>> catalog records for the original of a reproduction?
>> close to never. ..."
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> " ... I've done some reading and re-reading in Cartographic Materials
>> (CM),
>> including the definitions of "Facsimile" and "Reproduction" and
>> "Reprint" in
>> the Glossary. I continue to come to the same conclusion, and that is
>> that
>> Chapter 11, "Facsimiles, Photocopies, and Other Reproductions" in CM
>> applies
>> to your case. The online version of the map should be considered the
>> original, the printout a reproduction of the original. Following this
>> logic
>> when doing the description for the printout the cataloger should
>> describe
>> the printout itself, but use a 534 "Original Version" note to
>> describe the
>> specifics of the map found online, and I assume that means including
>> a URL
>> or PURL so that one can go to the online site if they chose.
>> Unfortunately,
>> and I just looked this up in Bib. Format Input Standards, there is not a
>> subfield specific for placing a URL into -- there is a $l [el] for
>> "Location
>> of original" or one could use $n "Note about the original" as another
>> place
>> to place a URL I suppose."
>>
>> [I used the 534 "Original Version" note in conjunction with an 856
>> for the
>> URL. -- matt]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> " ... What I did find was in Cartographic Materials, 2nd ed., under 11A,
>> also
>> saying to catalog the reproduction and make a note about the
>> original. But
>> they don't give an example where the original is an electronic resource.
>> So it seems as though you're in somewhat uncharted territory here! I
>> think
>> it makes sense to catalog the paper print that you have in front of
>> you, to
>> describe in detail that print reproduction that the catalog user is
>> going
>> to consider using. But if your library had policy where they wanted
>> all
>> derivative products (I'm forgetting the right terminology here)
>> described
>> in one unified catalog record, then I think you would do it the other
>> way."
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Matthew Parsons, Map Librarian
>> Map Collection & Cartographic Information Services
>> University of Washington Libraries
>> Box 352900, Seattle, WA 98195
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 206-543-9392
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Parsons" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: "Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:49 PM
>> Subject: Cataloging a print reproduction of an electronic map
>>
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have a cataloging question needing some general consensus:
>>>
>>> I am cataloging a print reproduction of an electronic map. LCRI 1.11
>>> says to
>>> describe the original in your record, and then give a reproduction
>>> note in
>>> 533. Thus the record has an 007 and 006 for the computer
>>> file, the GMD [electronic resource] after the title, system
>>> requirement/mode of access note(s), source of title note, etc. And
>>> then a
>>> 533 reproduction note for the computer printout. Indeed, this is what
>>> the UW monographic cataloger's do for printouts of textual material
>>> from the Web. But a quick review
>>> of the Map Cataloging Manual (chapter 8:
>>> facsimiles/photocopies/reprints) seems to indicate that they
>>> don't follow the above policy and instead do something different. I
>>> just wonder if I can extrapolate their
>>> photocopy policy to a printout from an electronic map. Any opinions??
>>>
>>> Please reply directly to me ([log in to unmask]) and I will
>>> summarize for the list.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Matthew Parsons, Map Librarian
>>> Map Collection & Cartographic Information Services
>>> University of Washington Libraries
>>> Box 352900, Seattle, WA 98195
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> 206-543-9392
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._
>
> ANGIE COPE
> American Geographical Society Library
> UW Milwaukee
> 2311 E. Hartford Avenue
> Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
>
> http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/AGSL/index.html
> Hours: M-F 8:00am-4:30pm
> [log in to unmask]
> (414) 229-6282
> (800) 558-8993 (US TOLL FREE)
> (414) 229-3624 (FAX)
>
> Map Librarian, MAPS-L Moderator
> http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/AGSL/welcome_to_mapsl%20forum.html
>
> .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._
--
|
