================================================
MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
================================================
Subject: Re: MAPS-L: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction
of an electronic map
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005
From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Mary has a good point here, I do think local practice/policy should help
guide in this decision. Just this week I had to tackle Angie's exact
situation, we received two copies of a scanned map to be cataloged, one for
each of our University Park map collections. In our case, the scanned
copies were considered "copies" or "duplicates" of the original map,
therefore a 590 note was added to the record for the original map
indicating the presence of the two scanned copies and two holdings records
at the item level were created in order to place the barcode and location
information into the record so that our patrons will see this information
when they call up the record in the OPAC. We did not go as far as to
separately designate the scanned copies through the use of an additional
term to the end of the call number, but thats a great idea too.
I wouldn't say the way that we handled this was either right or wrong, just
the way we looked at the situation and got the work done in an efficient
manner. Perhaps we will have to revisit the issue in the future if we start
seeing many more scanned copies to be done...
Paige
At 12:26 PM 10/25/2005, you wrote:
>================================================
>MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
>================================================
>Subject: Re: MAPS-L: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction
>of an electronic map
>Date: Tues, 25 Oct 2005
>From: Mary Larsgaard <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Organization: UCSB Map & Imagery Lab, Library
>To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Depends on library cataloging policy;
>some libraries use one record for
>the original and the scan - and technically,
>one could put in a 590 field noting that
>one has scanned and plotted the map -
>and then make a holdings record for
>the plot, with the last line of the call #
>being "plot."
>
>If library cataloging policy is that
>each physical object is to be cataloged
>separately, then this would mean
>3 bibliographic records.
>
>Mary larsgaard
>
>
>Angie Cope, AGSL wrote:
>
>>================================================
>>MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
>>================================================
>>RE MAPS-L: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction of an
>>electronic map
>>DA Mon, 24 Oct 2005
>>FR Angie
>>TO Maps-L
>>
>>How are other libraries handling scanned or plotted maps? So, for
>>example, you have a map that is badly damaged. You carefully scan it,
>>retain the digital image file and plot out a copy for daily use. Now you
>>have three things: 1)the original, 2) the plot of the original and 3)
>>the tif or jpg of the original. How are you handling this in your
>>catalogs/MARC records?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Angie
>>
>>
>>
>>Angie Cope, AGSL wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>================================================
>>>MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L ** MAPS-L
>>>================================================
>>>
>>>Subject: Response Summary: Cataloging a print reproduction of an
>>>electronic map
>>>Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:08:28 -0700
>>>From: Matthew Parsons <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>Thanks to all who replied to my cataloging question. To summarize:
>>>
>>>All were in general consensus that one should catalog (describe) the
>>>reproduction and make a note about the original. Basis for this
>>>reasoning
>>>is primarily from Cartographic Materials, 2nd ed., chapter 11 regarding
>>>"Facsimiles, Photocopies, and Other Reproductions."
>>>
>>>Excerpts from responses:
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>" ... Yes, you can extrapolate what's in the Map Cataloging
>>>Manual and CartMtls manual to what you have in hand.
>>>
>>>Overview:
>>>When AACR2 went into effect in the early 1980s,
>>>almost everyone except the map catalogers elected
>>>not to follow the AACR2 rules which were always
>>>to catalog the piece in hand, and when you had a reproduction
>>>to describe the reproduction, putting details about the
>>>original into notes. This works very well with
>>>map repros - how often are we able to find
>>>catalog records for the original of a reproduction?
>>>close to never. ..."
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>" ... I've done some reading and re-reading in Cartographic Materials
>>>(CM),
>>>including the definitions of "Facsimile" and "Reproduction" and
>>>"Reprint" in
>>>the Glossary. I continue to come to the same conclusion, and that is
>>>that
>>>Chapter 11, "Facsimiles, Photocopies, and Other Reproductions" in CM
>>>applies
>>>to your case. The online version of the map should be considered the
>>>original, the printout a reproduction of the original. Following this
>>>logic
>>>when doing the description for the printout the cataloger should
>>>describe
>>>the printout itself, but use a 534 "Original Version" note to
>>>describe the
>>>specifics of the map found online, and I assume that means including
>>>a URL
>>>or PURL so that one can go to the online site if they chose.
>>>Unfortunately,
>>>and I just looked this up in Bib. Format Input Standards, there is not a
>>>subfield specific for placing a URL into -- there is a $l [el] for
>>>"Location
>>>of original" or one could use $n "Note about the original" as another
>>>place
>>>to place a URL I suppose."
>>>
>>>[I used the 534 "Original Version" note in conjunction with an 856
>>>for the
>>>URL. -- matt]
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>" ... What I did find was in Cartographic Materials, 2nd ed., under 11A,
>>>also
>>>saying to catalog the reproduction and make a note about the
>>>original. But
>>>they don't give an example where the original is an electronic resource.
>>>So it seems as though you're in somewhat uncharted territory here! I
>>>think
>>>it makes sense to catalog the paper print that you have in front of
>>>you, to
>>>describe in detail that print reproduction that the catalog user is
>>>going
>>>to consider using. But if your library had policy where they wanted
>>>all
>>>derivative products (I'm forgetting the right terminology here)
>>>described
>>>in one unified catalog record, then I think you would do it the other
>>>way."
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>Matthew Parsons, Map Librarian
>>>Map Collection & Cartographic Information Services
>>>University of Washington Libraries
>>>Box 352900, Seattle, WA 98195
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>206-543-9392
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Matthew Parsons" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: "Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum"
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 2:49 PM
>>>Subject: Cataloging a print reproduction of an electronic map
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello all,
>>>>
>>>>I have a cataloging question needing some general consensus:
>>>>
>>>>I am cataloging a print reproduction of an electronic map. LCRI 1.11
>>>>says to
>>>>describe the original in your record, and then give a reproduction
>>>>note in
>>>>533. Thus the record has an 007 and 006 for the computer
>>>>file, the GMD [electronic resource] after the title, system
>>>>requirement/mode of access note(s), source of title note, etc. And
>>>>then a
>>>>533 reproduction note for the computer printout. Indeed, this is what
>>>>the UW monographic cataloger's do for printouts of textual material
>>>>from the Web. But a quick review
>>>>of the Map Cataloging Manual (chapter 8:
>>>>facsimiles/photocopies/reprints) seems to indicate that they
>>>>don't follow the above policy and instead do something different. I
>>>>just wonder if I can extrapolate their
>>>>photocopy policy to a printout from an electronic map. Any opinions??
>>>>
>>>>Please reply directly to me ([log in to unmask]) and I will
>>>>summarize for the list.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>Matthew Parsons, Map Librarian
>>>>Map Collection & Cartographic Information Services
>>>>University of Washington Libraries
>>>>Box 352900, Seattle, WA 98195
>>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>>206-543-9392
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._
>>
>>ANGIE COPE
>>American Geographical Society Library
>>UW Milwaukee
>>2311 E. Hartford Avenue
>>Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
>>
>>http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/AGSL/index.html
>>Hours: M-F 8:00am-4:30pm
>>[log in to unmask]
>>(414) 229-6282
>>(800) 558-8993 (US TOLL FREE)
>>(414) 229-3624 (FAX)
>>
>>Map Librarian, MAPS-L Moderator
>>http://www.uwm.edu/Libraries/AGSL/welcome_to_mapsl%20forum.html
>>
>>.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._
>
>
>
>--
--
|
