That is what I started to write last night before I got distracted by a request from a patron…
I usually would add the title of the map that supplemented a book, using the 246. Though partly, this was done because I was not encouraged to treat the maps as special, by our monograph-thinking cataloger. I have always tried to include all the access points that I can. The 246 was considered acceptable by my department. I also would add a note field to express the description of the map, and description field would include it as normal. Some of the map supplements were unique enough that I felt it important to give them this treatment. In many cases, the users wanted the maps more than the books they accompanied.
I can see your points as well. From an indexing point of view, in the online world, either fields (246/7xx) will provide access.
David J. Bertuca, Map Librarian
Science and Engineering Information Center
116 Lockwood Memorial Library
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
716-645-1332 / 716-645-3859 (fax)
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Liaison to the Geography Department for GIS and Physical Geography
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paige G. Andrew
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 3:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: cataloguing question
I wholeheartedly agree with Nancy's assessment. The use of the 773 allows for the title of the book to be brought out if the maps are considered the primary resource. However, if cataloging the book as the primary resource the 246 should be reserved for alternate, variant, or additional title types related to the book, while a 740 or 700/710 with $t should be used for the titles of the maps since they are the "analytic" in this case.
Paige
________________________________
From: "Nancy Kandoian" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:43:36 PM
Subject: Re: cataloguing question
But since 246 is for "varying form of title," wouldn't a 7xx (either 740, or a 700 or 710 with a subfield t, and then a second indicator 2) be more appropriate for an analytic (like a map within a book)? I think of "varying form of title" as another or variant title of the main work being cataloged, like a panel title versus a title on the face of a map, or a spine title versus a title-page title of a book.
Nancy
++++++++++++++
Nancy A. Kandoian
Map Cataloger
The Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division, Room 117
Stephen A. Schwarzman Building
The New York Public Library
5th Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, New York 10018
(212) 930 0586
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Bertuca, David <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I have used the 246 inclusion to resolve this as the maps are distinct enough that I want to provide access (a lot of geology reports come to mind). It was one way that was acceptable here at UB where cataloging policy was determined to not provide exceptions or to separate items form their parent record.
David J. Bertuca, Map Librarian
Science and Engineering Information Center
116 Lockwood Memorial Library
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
716-645-1332<tel:(716)%20645-1332> / 716-645-3859<tel:(716)%20645-3859> (fax)
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Liaison to the Geography Department for GIS and Physical Geography
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Ken Rockwell
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: cataloguing question
Hi, Ifigenia,
Something I do In cases where the maps are the accompanying material, but have separate titles and might be of interest by themselves, is to enter a 246 for the map title, preceded by a note, thus: $i Title of accompanying map: $a [title]
--Ken Rockwell
University of Utah
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ?F?G????? ??????OS??
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: cataloguing question
Dear all, Happy New Year!
A question for the cataloguing process:
I have a book which has two separate maps in it. Each one has its own title and scale e.t.c.
Should we catalogue each map separately? And use 770 (? Or what else?) to link it with the book?
Or should we follow the simple “+ 2 maps in folder” (there are records in that form).
I believe this is a policy choice but I would like to hear your opinion and how you manage a case like this.
Thanks in advance
Ifigenia Vardakosta
Harokopio University
Library & Information Centre
El.Venizelou 70
176-71 Kallithea,Athens
Greece
tel:+30-2109549170
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
|
