MAPS-L Archives

Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc.

MAPS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Maps-L Moderator <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:18:45 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (81 lines)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Terminology question - "composite,atlas" or "atlas factice".
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:18:59 +0000 (GMT)
From:   A CARLUCCI <[log in to unmask]>
To:     [log in to unmask]



The glossary of _Cartographic Materials, a Manual of Interpretation for
AACR2_, defines "Atlas factice" as "a composite work made up of a
selection of previously issued maps. It may be bound or loose-leaf." The
term "composite atlas" refers you back to "atlas factice."

I would agree that it might be difficult to reach a consensus were we to
hold a vote. There are differences in terminology between
librarians/curators and dealers, as well as between American and British
English, and in the UK I have certainly heard "composite atlas" but not
"atlas factice."

Anyone working with maps should have a copy of _Cartographic Materials_
at hand. Even if you are not catalog(u)ing to international standards,
it has a wealth of information about maps and their description.

Hope this helps.

April
April Carlucci
Itinerant Map Catalog(u)er
Both sides of the Atlantic


--- On *Thu, 18/6/09, Maps-L Moderator /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:


    From: Maps-L Moderator <[log in to unmask]>
    Subject: Re: Terminology question - "composite,atlas" or "atlas
    factice".
    To: [log in to unmask]
    Date: Thursday, 18 June, 2009, 7:18 PM

    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject:        Re: Terminology question - "composite,atlas" or
    "atlas factice".
    Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:39:06 -0000 (UTC)
    From:   [log in to unmask]
    <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
    To:     [log in to unmask]
    <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
    References:     <[log in to unmask]
    <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>




    I would be a bit surprised if you could get specific consensus on this.
    There have been a couple of discussions on MapHist about this, one of
    which is mentioned here:
    http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/pipermail/maphist/2008-March/011579.html .

               Joel Kovarsky

     > -------- Original Message --------
     > Subject:        Terminology question
     > Date:   Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:51:05 -0700
     > From:   [log in to unmask]
    <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
     > To:     MAPS-L <[log in to unmask]
    <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
     >
     >
     > Hi there,
     > Can anyone tell me which term is more commonly or appropriately
    used in
     > describing an atlas made up
     > of a selection of individually issued or collected maps: "composite
     > atlas" or "atlas factice".
     >
     > Thanks,
     > Silvana
     >

ATOM RSS1 RSS2