-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: cataloging print-on-demand maps
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:55:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paige G Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To: Air Photo Maps, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]>


Chris,

I vote Facsimiles. And, in the WEMI model, these would be an expression,
correct?

Paige

----- Original Message -----
From: "Angie Cope, American Geographical Society Library, UW Milwaukee"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:35:15 AM
Subject: cataloging print-on-demand maps

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        cataloging print-on-demand maps
Date:   Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:26:20 +0000
From:   Christopher Winters <[log in to unmask]>
To:     [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>



Hi,

I'd be grateful for comment about whether print-on-demand maps are
facsimiles--or just photocopies. I am thinking in particular of prints
from scans of Soviet urban maps made by East View. The answer to this
question would of course affect the cataloging record in many places,
notably the 007, the 008, the 050/090, 260, 300, and 534/775/776 fields
and the subject headings. I'd vote for calling these facsimiles--but I'd
welcome counterarguments.

Two things may or not be relevant here:

[1] We've been doing all our original cataloging since October 2010 in
RDA. The catalogers at the University of Chicago who are most in contact
with the, well, RDA community tell me that an RDA approach to
reproductions hasn't really hasn't been decided. Thus, we've been
continuing to make the late-AACR2 distinction between published
facsimiles and one-of-a-kind photocopies: the former get records as
completely new publications with information about the original version
shown in various places in the record, while records for the latter are
given publication dates and the like of the original publication; their
status as photocopies is shown only in the 007 and 300 fields.

[2] Again following the advice of our most RDA-centric catalogers, we
have been taking the advice of the LC memo at

http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/reproductions.pdf

in describing the original versions of published reproductions, i.e.,
putting this information in the 775 or 776 rather than the 534 field.
But this memo suggests that there should be no distinction between
published facsimiles and one-of-a-kind photocopies. (Its examples of the
latter show the LC Photoduplication Service as the publisher; most of
our photocopies come from an unknown source, perhaps a faculty member at
a xerox machine, which makes this advice a little hard to follow.)

Thanks for your thoughts.

Chris Winters

University of Chicago Library