-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: Question about the new form/genre 655 headings
Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:40:49 -0400
From:   David J. Bertuca <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
<[log in to unmask]>


This is a topic that I've encouraged with catalogers and students, because
after teaching cataloging for a number of years, and being asked "why can't
I just put this in as a heading?" I have been able to explain how people
can use the 655, and other fields, to handle non-LC, or local practice
headings. I always show examples so that they can understand the difference
between the various 6xx fields.

And I also stress that there is no reason now for entering 650/651 headings
that are not correct.

The reason LC records have used these is that they are practicing
full-level cataloging, which means that even though all the fields are not
used by every library, they are there for libraries that do use them (e.g.,
LC adds Dewey nos. because they are part of a full record, despite the fact
that Dewey is not used by LC).

Definitely read the documentation and discussions; it is worth it.

David J. Bertuca, Map Librarian
225 Capen Hall
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-1672

716-645-1332
716-645-3710 (fax)
[log in to unmask]

--On Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:23 PM -0500 Angie Cope<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  -------- Original Message --------
>  Subject: Re: Question about the new form/genre 655 headings
>  Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:12:46 -0400
>  From: Paige Andrew<[log in to unmask]>
>  To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
>  <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>  Chris,
>
>  The new cartographic form/genre headings went into effect on September
>  1st. If you do searches in the authority files for things such as
>  "topographic maps" you will find that these are now tagged as 155s, and
>  therefore are to be used as 655 headings in bib. records. More
>  importantly, while in OCLC if you try and use the "old" form of these
>  headings -- at the end of 650 or 651 strings, they will not validate.
>  That's a big "clue" as to the need to place these types of headings now
>  into the 655 field.
>
>  In case folks missed any/some of this, there are several documents
>  related to this change on the Library of Congress' Cataloging and
>  Acquistions homepage, http://www.loc.gov/aba/ and click on the first item
>  under "News", and then you can find several other documents by clicking
>  on Genre/Form Headings at the Library of Congress under the "Subject&
>  Genre/Form Headings" area.
>
>  Basically, one leaves the $v Maps at the end of a 6XX string, but for any
>  of most of the other common f/g terms these get placed in separate 655
>  fields. So, you get:
>
>  651 0 State College (Pa.) $v Maps.
>   655 0 Tourist maps.
>
>  Note that "Tourist maps" is the uninverted form of the old "Maps,
>  Tourist" that used to go at the end of the 6XX string.
>
>  To see a list of "official" cartographic f/g headings if you have access
>  to Classification Web go to the LC Subject Headings link on the main menu
>  and type in "cartographic materials" at the Structured Subject Heading
>  box and click on "browse". You'll get a short list of three broad
>  headings, one of which is "cartographic materials", click on that to get
>  the narrower terms. In addition, Joel Hahn kindly compiled and shared a
>  list of these as part of a much larger f/g document that can be found at:
>  http://www.hahnlibrary.net/libraries/formgenre-categorized.html#maps
>
>  If you're interested in seeing a document about this change that we at
>  Penn State on our Maps Cataloging Team completed today I can share a
>  draft of it with you if you contact me offline.
>
>  Paige
>
>  On 9/23/2010 3:43 PM, Angie Cope wrote:
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
>  Subject: Question about the new form/genre 655 headings
>  Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:32:47 -0500
>  From: Chris Winters<[log in to unmask]>
>  To: Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
>  <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>  I'm a little confused about correct practice for the new 655s.
>
>  I'd be grateful for anyone's thoughts on the following:
>
>  [1] It looks as though LC is insisting on including a
>
>  655  0 Maps.
>
>  (see, e.g., OCLC 664808196) in the absence of a "thematic" 655. The
>  implication is that from now on all map records _must_ have a 655. Is
>  this right? (But see OCLC 664808195 for a counterexample.)
>
>  [2] "Road maps" does not appear in the list of 655s I've seen, but see
>  OCLC  664808197 which has both
>
>  655  0 Road maps.
>
>  and a
>
>  650  0 Roads #z[Place name] #vMaps.
>
>  Is this right? (Note also OCLC 664808194, which has a
>
>  655  0 Roads maps.
>
>  .) Other recent LC records (e.g., 664808196, mentioned above) don't try
>  to get "road maps" into a 655 at all.
>
>  Is there a "correct" practice here?
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Chris Winters
>  University of Chicago Library
>
>