----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Nancy Kandoian's question about the new printing of the
Yosemite map brings up an embarrassingly elementary
cataloging question:
 
When a map's printing date and publication date differ,
which date is supposed to go in the 260c (and the 008
publication date slot)? It's my impression that the great
majority of libraries that contribute to OCLC use the
printing date here, certainly in the case of USGS maps where
the tiny date just beyond the lower right edge of the
neatline gets put in the 260c. However, some libraries
(including, often, LC) prefer to use the publication date in
the 260c and to put the printing date in subfield g of the
260 (in parentheses). Contrast OCLC 19481445 (GPO) and
21445385 (DLC) for an example. (It may be relevant that the
(book) catalogers in this library, if I've understood them
correctly, go so far as to argue that the printing date,
if it needs to be recorded at all, should go in a local
note.)
 
A related issue is what to do with the call
number. Shouldn't the date in the call number be the
publication date rather than the printing date since that
must be closer to the date of situation? And, in the case
of a reprint, shouldn't one then add the printing date after
the author Cutter? This doesn't exactly seem to be what
libraries usually do, but see OCLC 25170639 for an example
(from GIS).
 
I realize that the concepts "publication date" and
"printing date" don't always fit map publishing practices
very well and that the whole question is somewhat
complicated by the USGS updating patterns about which Nancy
writes. But I'm really inquiring about the cataloging rules.
 
Please forgive my asking about what may be an ancient map
cataloging issue. It's one I feel very confused about and
certainly one on which map catalogers are extremely
inconsistent.
 
Thanks for any answers.
 
Chris Winters
University of Chicago Library
 
Internet:        [log in to unmask]