-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: New record needed in OCLC? New map cataloger
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:04:53 -0400
From:   Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum
<[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
References:     <[log in to unmask]>



Good morning Linda!

Saw your note while on vacation earlier this week, will attempt to
assist here though this seems to be a pretty complicated situation and I
hope those on the list with specific knowledge about how the 7.5-minute
topos are revised and/or reprinted can also chime in. I'll speak from a
cataloger's side of things though.

First, it sounds to me like you are trying to catalog your collection at
the sheet level? And thus, if you are, then you are trying to find
matching copy done at that level. That said, the record input in 1985
that you gave us was not done in the clearest manner, particularly since
it describes a particular single sheet in the series and yet the CrTp
fixed field is set for describing a map set or series (of which, of
course, this is one sheet in the series). The date in the 260 and fixed
field should also have been set for the specific sheet if that was the
intended way of describing the map, the "[19-- ]" implies a group of map
sheets or sheets forming a series that were published during different
years over the 20th century. So, besides these two areas, and also the
fact that you are not finding some of the information noted in 500 notes
on the map that you have, I can see where the confusion comes in!

One thing that would be helpful to you is to understand the difference
between dates that constitute "date of situation" or "situation date"
versus anything that is a publication or printing date. The date found
in lower righthand corner in tiny print with the "Interior--Geological
Survey" information is a printing date, and if to be used as a
publication date is the date of last resort (if you have no other
evidence of a true publication date then this is treated as a date of
manufacture). I would recommend having a look at LC's /Map Cataloging
Manual/, which is on Cataloger's Desktop (or if you are like me I have a
print copy that is still used by myself for such things today!),
particularly the area talking about date of situation. Its Chapter 1,
particularly pages 1.16-1.18.

Your map, and the bib. record you are looking at, both have several
dates going on related to particular activities. The bib. record for the
edition on OCLC appears to me to have a date of situation of 1985 based
on the photorevised date and the 500 note (the Map Cataloging Manual
also talks about photorevised dates for map series being treated as
constituting a new edition, in Chapter 7). From what you describe about
your own copy, its a 1954 edition, based on the notes about hydrography
and when it was field checked, that was reprinted in 1967 without
changes. Of course, since I don't have your map in hand I could be wrong
here too.

On to the crux of the matter, do you have enough evidence to create a
new record in OCLC or not? Looking at the field-by-field guidelines, the
one on the 250 Edition statement might be helpful, the one on 260$c
doesn't seem to allow a new record, but one of the bulleted items for
500 notes may help you here:

"Notes indicating differences in the language, edition, format, or
content of the item may justify a new record."

If your copy does not have any kind of edition statement, including
"revision"-type statements then there's a justification based on the
250. Take that and seeing that you have several different specific
statements on your map vs. the bib. record in terms of the 500 notes and
I would lean towards you having enough evidence to create a new record
that describes your 1954 edition.

That said, let me also share a very important note at the beginning of
the whole "When to Input a New Record" document:

"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."

*and in particular the bolded "If in doubt..." So, after you've weighed
everything, and you still have enough doubt, maybe the best thing to do
is not create a new record but download the existing one and edit it
locally to describe yours. Still, seems to me that you do have enough
justification for a new record based on your descriptions...

Hope this helps...

Paige

At 08:28 AM 8/10/2009, Angie Cope wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: New record needed in OCLC? New map cataloger
> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:00:00 -0500
> From: Linda K Ginn <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hello, collective map wisdom. I am new to map cataloging and new to this
> list. I was in a one-day class 21 months ago but am only now starting to
> work with some maps. I have been reading Paige Andrew’s book, Cataloging
> sheet maps : the basics, and am absorbing some good knowledge that way.
>
> I have a stack of USGS quadrangle maps, 7.5 minute series (topographic).
> Map in hand: Gulfport North quadrangle, Mississippi—Harrison Co. (7.5
> minute…). Filing title at bottom right: Gulfport North, Miss. 1954. Of
> two OCLC records produced via title search, one includes 1954 (245). The
> record appeared to be the right one, with matching data such as
> coordinates and what appeared at first to be small differences of the
> type that seem not to justify a new record in OCLC.
>
> · OCLC #213749776
>
> · FF DtSt m and Dates 1900 9999 [seems that s 1954 would be right].
>
> · 034/255 entries match.
>
> · 245 entered under the series name (we are entering the sheet title
> with series in |b); matching |c mapped by U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
> ; edited and published by the Geological Survey.
>
> · 260 |c [19--]- [not the prominent 1954; perhaps the title entry under
> series and the range of dates match up?]
>
> Now I’m not sure I’m on the right track. I see specific bits of
> information in the record that I don’t see on the map, and I don’t see
> other data the bib record says should be there.
>
> · 500 “Revisions shown in purple and woodland compiled from aerial
> photographs taken 1981." [Can’t find this quoted statement anywhere]
>
> · 500 Map edited and printed 1985. [can’t find this]
>
> · 500 “DMA 3144 I NE ­ Series V843”
>
> On the map in hand:
>
> · Culture and drainage in part compiled from aerial photographs taken 1950
>
> · Topography by planetable surveys 1951
>
> · Field check 1954
>
> · Hydrography compiled from USC&GS chart 876-877 (1954)
>
> · USC&GS T-9376
>
> · AMS 3144 I NE ­ Series V843
>
> · Interior-Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.-1967 [in tiny print just
> below the neat line, bottom right]
>
> I was about to decide the map in hand predates the one in the record
> based on the 5xx fields and was ready to derive a new record. I don’t
> find support in OCLC input standards in 5xx for doing this, but it seems
> misleading to attach our holdings symbol to a record that says it was
> printed in 1985 and has quoted information about photos in 1981 when
> this one doesn’t. That’s when I found the 1967 under the neat line.
>
> Would you input a new record in these circumstances?
>
> What does the 1967 line mean and how should it be entered/coded
> (FFields, 260, etc.)?
>
> Thanks for your help on these questions.