================================================
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
--
|
