-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Question about 300 field for atlases
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:28:50 -0400
From: Fell, Todd <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>


My name is Todd Fell and I am part of the editorial group currently
working on rules for cataloging early cartographic materials,
Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials, Cartographic (DCRM(C)). I've
been following this discussion thread with great interest as the
particular topic has recently been raised in our discussions of Area 5
(Physical Description).

As Joel has so kindly pointed out, there indeed is a DCRM(C) wiki
available for public viewing where we post our comments, questions, etc.
for particular areas of the rules as we work through them. Keep in mind
the wiki is meant only for discussions within the editorial group and
thus, the rules as given in the chapter drafts are liable to change. One
primary goal of the group is to remain as faithful as possible and
permissible to the principles given in Descriptive Cataloging of Rare
Materials, Books (DCRM(B)). In the case of atlases, this is not
difficult, as their format (for the most part) is very similar to
monograph material.

A clarification of terminology is important when discussing leaves or
pages of plates for early material:

A "double plate" is a plate folded and bound at the inner margin;
according to CM 5B14 (Application 2 for early atlases) and DCRM(B)
5B9.1, one should count these as two leaves of plates. Keep in mind a
double plate in one copy may be a folded plate in another copy,
depending upon how the map has been bound (e.g., a map that has been
bound along its fore-edge and folds out is considered one folded leaf of
plates). To complicate things a bit more, a double plate could also be a
folded leaf (e.g., a map folded and bound at the inner margin, but also
which folds out even further, somewhat like the examples of the
triple-folded maps Allison gives, assuming the maps are bound at the
inner margin).

A "double leaf" is a plate with a fold at either the top or fore edge
(e.g., books in the traditional oriental format); according to CM 5B16,
you would describe them as pages or leaves according to their numbering;
if unnumbered, each double leaf would be counted as two pages; DCRM(B)
5B11 agrees with CM 5B16, but states to count unnumbered double leaves
as pages (2 printed pages per double leaf) or as leaves (1 printed page
per double leaf).

A "folded leaf" is just that, a leaf of plates that has been folded; you
note they are folded in the 300 $a. As with double plates, a folded leaf
in one copy may be a double plate in another. A folded leaf may also be
a double plate, as noted above.

Thus, assuming all of your maps have been bound and folded at the inner
margin, if you are cataloging according to the principles of DCRM(B),
you would describe the plates as April has advised:

[3], 79 p., [46] leaves of plates (2 folded)

(Note: the pagination as given would need to be corrected, as every leaf
in a volume as issued by the publisher must be accounted for according
to DCRM(B) principles, including leaves of text and blank leaves. But
that's another issue ...).

The triple-folded maps would merely be counted as folded leaves (you
could provide an explanatory 500 note should you wish), assuming the
sheets pasted to the double plates were meant to be issued together
(e.g., 1 map on 2 sheets).

The only time one would use the phrase "double leaves" would be in a 500
note (see CM 5B16, including the application for early atlases, and
DCRM(B) 5B11), although one must be clear they are talking about double
leaves, oriental style and not leaves of plates folded and bound at the
margin.

As noted above, the discussion of Area 5, and thus of leaves of plates,
has just begun for DCRM(C). Perhaps the rules as given in both CM and
DCRM(B) need to be simplified or made clearer. Or perhaps they are fine
as is. Regardless, if anyone would like to comment and/or provide their
opinion on the issue of leaves of plates in atlases, please do so by
replying directly to me ([log in to unmask]) and I will bring all
replies to next editorial meeting in April.

Apologies for the lengthy reply.

Todd Fell