-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Cataloging of atlases
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:05:51 -0500
From: Falato, Brian <[log in to unmask]>


------------------
Atlases used to be cataloged as just another type of monograph.  Now the
cataloging focus is on the cartographic aspects.  On OCLC, the MARC
record has fixed fields for the maps format that are different from the
monographic format.  This can cause a difference in the browse or index
displays in the public catalog.

The question came up at my library whether it was worth it to try to
change records for atlases that were not cataloged on the maps format.
There is a potential source for confusion when the library has more than
one edition of an atlas, for instance, and the earlier edition was
cataloged using monographic format while the more recent edition was
cataloged on the map format.  Is the fact that the public catalog may
label the later edition as a map (or cartographic resource or a similar
term) on the browse display while not doing so for the earlier edition a
problem?  Are patrons getting shortchanged if they limit a search to
maps/cartographic material and don't get all the material that should be
retrieved on a search because some atlases are not cataloged on maps
format and thus get left out in a search limited to cartographic
material?  Or have reference librarians taught patrons ways to work
around this problem so the patrons get what they want and are not
confused by sear!
ch results?

I was aked to post this question to get a feeling for what other
libraries are doing.  By posting to Maps-L, I hope to get responses not
only from catalogers, but also the views of reference librarians who
provide cartographic reference service.


Brian Falato
Serials/Maps Cataloger
University of South Florida
Tampa Campus Library
Tampa, FL 33620
(813)974-1772
[log in to unmask]