-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: cataloging print-on-demand maps
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:59:35 -0400
From: Grabach, Kenneth A. Mr. <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship <[log in to unmask]>
I haven't thought a great deal about printed-on-demand maps as distinct
from traditional offset and other printing methods, I must admit. In
the cases I've seen, they have been plot-printed on demand from digital
master originals. Where they are printed off from a scan, they might be
a reproduction, and possible a facsimile. East View is beginning to do
this for new topo sheets from various sources, such as some I have
acquired of quadrangles of Nepal. I have seen others, where a printable
master has been the way to distribute a purchase, that we then have to
print as a one-off use. And a company that specializes in maps of parks
in Canada, GoTrekkers, also are distributed as plot-printed maps. There
seem to be various types of printed-on-demand maps. So the type of
source seems to me to be part of it, as well. I think the answer is,
"It depends on what you actually have."
Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
Maps Librarian Phone: 513-529-1726
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Angie Cope, American
Geographical Society Library, UW Milwaukee
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: cataloging print-on-demand maps
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: cataloging print-on-demand maps
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:26:20 +0000
From: Christopher Winters <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Hi,
I'd be grateful for comment about whether print-on-demand maps are
facsimiles--or just photocopies. I am thinking in particular of prints
from scans of Soviet urban maps made by East View. The answer to this
question would of course affect the cataloging record in many places,
notably the 007, the 008, the 050/090, 260, 300, and 534/775/776 fields
and the subject headings. I'd vote for calling these facsimiles--but I'd
welcome counterarguments.
Two things may or not be relevant here:
[1] We've been doing all our original cataloging since October 2010 in
RDA. The catalogers at the University of Chicago who are most in contact
with the, well, RDA community tell me that an RDA approach to
reproductions hasn't really hasn't been decided. Thus, we've been
continuing to make the late-AACR2 distinction between published
facsimiles and one-of-a-kind photocopies: the former get records as
completely new publications with information about the original version
shown in various places in the record, while records for the latter are
given publication dates and the like of the original publication; their
status as photocopies is shown only in the 007 and 300 fields.
[2] Again following the advice of our most RDA-centric catalogers, we
have been taking the advice of the LC memo at
http://www.loc.gov/acq/conser/reproductions.pdf
in describing the original versions of published reproductions, i.e.,
putting this information in the 775 or 776 rather than the 534 field.
But this memo suggests that there should be no distinction between
published facsimiles and one-of-a-kind photocopies. (Its examples of the
latter show the LC Photoduplication Service as the publisher; most of
our photocopies come from an unknown source, perhaps a faculty member at
a xerox machine, which makes this advice a little hard to follow.)
Thanks for your thoughts.
Chris Winters
University of Chicago Library
|
