-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Cataloging of atlases
Date:   Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:06:29 -0500
From:   Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>




Brian,

Just two cents' worth from a maps cataloger on this topic. Yes, the
positive move from describing atlases as a form of cartographic material
instead of a monograph (book) did create a "split" situation in terms of
the types of records residing in most institutions' OPACs. Here at Penn
State the decision was made not to attempt to go back and re-do older
records for atlases, at least for the time being. I suspect that is true
with most institutions because of the need to commit resources to do
such a project, and depending on the size of the local atlas collection
this could be substantial (i.e., the Library of Congress!)

In my own mostly uninformed opinion I would bet that patrons are finding
what they need/want in most cases simply because of the ability to
search online catalogs using keywords. The word "atlas" frequently, but
not always, appears in the title of an atlas (unfortunately, this
applies to non-geographic atlases too--causing occasional problems in
our dept. when an atlas of a mouse ends up in the wrong Teams' hands to
catalog) and is a term that a patron likely would use in a search
algorithm. Also, in terms of subject heading subdivisions, the term
"Maps" is used in the vast majority of cases, again a patron would
likely use this term while searching, and would therefore gather not
only sheet maps but also atlases of a given area.

Anyway, I do hope that you receive responses from map librarians and
other reference librarians who have experience assisting their patrons
to finding that atlas that they need!

Sincerely,

Paige Andrew
Faculty Maps Cataloging
Pennsylvania State University

At 04:43 PM 1/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:

> -------- 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]