4 messages -------------------------------------Johnnie
-------------------------------------------------------------
: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 15:37:08 -0800 (PST)
: Aimee <[log in to unmask]>
: Re: Map Cataloging Question
Hi Wendy,
We have just started to catalog all our maps including our topos. We are
processing via OCLC and then add to the collection. I will forward your
question to the person who is doing most of the cataloging and perhaps she can
give you pointers.
Also, would you please post a summary of your responses.
Aimee
Aimee Piscitelli
Documents Librarian
Eastern Washington University
(509) 359-4821
fax:509/359-6456
--------------------------------------------------------------------
: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 08:16:43 -0400 (EDT)
: [log in to unmask] (Paige Andrew)
: Re: Map Cataloging Question
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi there.
>I need opinions on cataloging USGS maps. Currently, our USGS topos are
>uncataloged. Our govdocs collection is SuDocs and our maps collection
>is in the same area as government documents. We plan on cataloging our USGS
>Topos, any recommendations on what classification system we should use?
>Also, if you could let me know how you think one system makes access to
>the maps easier than the other. I have been doing a lot of reading on
>this stuff, but it always is reassuring to hear what libraries are
>actually doing. We are leaning towards LC, but I would still like to have
>some opinions.
>
>Also, if other libraries who are in the same situation as we are
>(separate govdocs classed in SuDocs) could let me know what they are doing
>with their USGS maps I would be thrilled.
>
>I know these are involved questions, so any help would be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Wendy
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Wendy S. Mann
> Government Documents/Electronic Resources Librarian
> University of Pittsburgh
> 207 Hillman Library (412)648-7726
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260 e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
Wendy,
The Maps Collection and Govdocs collections here at Penn State are classed
as yours is, G-class for maps and sudocs for Govdocs. Melissa Lamont and I
are currently doing something unique with our topo collection in terms of
getting a handle on individual sheet and edition-level access, downloading
OCLC bib. records into our inhouse system and then working with INNOVACQ as
a link to showing individual sheets and various editions of individual sheets.
Both of us would recommend using LC Classification for bibliographic access
to this series. I think you'll find the majority of records found on OCLC
have been classed this way anyway. I'm also willing to bet the majority of
map collections out there use LC for their classification systems,
especially the large ones. I hope we see several answers to your questions
on the list so that you can get a good feel of what others are doing. Feel
free to call me or Melissa Lamont (814) 865-0139 or come over to State
College for a visit at any time. Good luck!
Paige
Mr. Paige G. Andrew
Maps/Nonbook Cataloger
E506 Pattee Library
Pennsylvania State University Libraries
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
[log in to unmask]
phone: 814-865-1755
fax: 814-863-7293
----------------------------------------------------------------
: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:12:47 EST
: John Crissinger <[log in to unmask]>
: RE: Map Cataloging Question
Greetings, Wendy! When I was at Virginia Tech we cataloged our topos in LC. I
still believe that was a wise decision. LC call numbers are in general use
throughout the library and students become familiar with them fairly earlier in
their academic careers. I still have problems finding my way around SUDOCs
numbers so I think I would contemplate deeply before going that route. The maps
appear on the opac and that helps their "marketing" and use. At Ambassador we
also adopted the LC class although with a much smaller body of topo's (Texas,
and selected others). Here at Carolina Tech I will again use LC. Of the 3,
only Va. Tech had a separate documents collection.
I suggest you seriously think how you want the patron to retrieve the maps. Do
you want each state assigned their own call number and therefore filed in LC
state call number order or do you want to look at the collection as a whole and
put it under the one call number for the US as a whole. Advantages and
disadvantages to both - depends on the needs of your patrons.
I would place 1:250's, 500's etc under the US as a whole (probably almost need
to to make it work) but might want to consider assigning specific call numbers
to selected "duplicate" sheets (Pittsburgh quads for example).
Hope this helps a little. Have fun!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 09:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
: Phil Hoehn <[log in to unmask]>
: Re: Map Cataloging Question
In response to Wendy Mann's question about USGS topo map cataloging,
specifically which classification system to use, I'd say that classifying
the quadrangle-based topographics is the least important question to
consider. First, one should decide what to do with all the other
depository maps, including USGS county-based topos, not to mention the
maps from other sources (governmental and non-governmental) which should
be together in the same map collection. For a U.S. library there is
really no choice to made for a classifications system for maps. LC is
just about the only viable option: it's long-established, well thought
out, fully developed (down to parts of cities!), revised as needed, and LC
classification numbers (or at least "052
-- Geographic Classification Code" numbers which one can usually easily
convert into a call number) are to be found on most OCLC and RLIN
records. SuDocs may initially appear to be a viable numbering system for
maps, but to use it then arbitrarily and unhelpfully separates
GPO-produced maps from similar ones issued by other entities; it also
arranged maps by agency rather than geographically. Having decided to
emply the LC classification scheme for maps, for
consistency's sake I'd follow LC G&M's practice of putting all USGS topo
quads into G3700 svar ...
Phil Hoehn
Map Collection
Earth Sciences & Map Library
Univ. of California
Berkeley, CA
[log in to unmask]
|
