Hi Gwen,
Per RDA 2.2.4, you can supply an edition statement and indicate that it is from outside the resource (i.e., supplied by the cataloger). I often supply an edition statement when the bibliographic descriptions of two (or more) maps are almost identical and I want to make certain that their records do not get merged in OCLC. (AMS maps are often only distinguished by a date consisting of a month and a year, and sometimes even the date for a single day.) This is a widespread and acceptable practice in map cataloging.
Cheers,
Louise Ratliff
Social Sciences and Map Cataloger
UCLA Cataloging & Metadata Center
2.2.4 Other Sources of Information[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/lcpslink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=lcpschp2&target=lcps2-289#lcps2-289>[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/revision201402link.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdarev201402&target=r201402-67#r201402-67>[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/nlgpslink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=nlgpschp2&target=nlgps02-78#nlgps02-78>
If information required to identify the resource does not appear on a source forming part of the resource itself (see 2.2.2.1[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-2841#rda2-2841>), take it from one of the following sources (in order of preference):
a)
accompanying material (e.g., a leaflet, an "about" file) that is not treated as part of the resource itself as described in 2.2.2.1[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-2841#rda2-2841>
b)
other published descriptions of the resource
c)
a container that is not issued with the resource itself (e.g., a box or case made by the owner)
d)
any other available source (e.g., a reference source).
When instructions specify transcription, indicate that the information is supplied from a source outside the resource itself:
by means of a note (see 2.17[http://access.rdatoolkit.org/images/rdalink.png]<http://access.rdatoolkit.org/document.php?id=rdachp2&target=rda2-8685#rda2-8685>)
or
by some other means (e.g., through coding or the use of square brackets).
________________________________
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Paige G. Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 7:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Merged records for topos
Gwen,
Past LC practice, which I do not believe has changed, has been to use square brackets with a supplied edition statement for those maps in which an explicit edition statement cannot be found on the resource but someone has compared a newer edition to an older one and decided that there has been enough cartographic change to indicate a different edition -- my memory tells me that often it is simply either "[New edition]" or "[Revised edition]". I honestly do not have time to dig deeper into this as I'm preparing to hop a 6 a.m. flight tomorrow to Austin, Texas, but in my opinion what you shared as a possible resolution seems appropriate to me. That said, I'd like to take a closer look at RDA to see if there is specific guidance there on this matter, so take what I've said above with a grain of salt. Perhaps I can assist further sometime next week. In the meantime, maybe one of the maps catalogers at LC G&M can chime in on this?
Sincerely,
Paige
________________________________
From: "Angie Cope" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 10:08:10 AM
Subject: Re: Merged records for topos
Hi Gwen,
What about "Woodland edition" and "Topographic edition" for the two different versions? You can add a note to explain "Topographic edition lacks woodland features" or something like that.
Angie
________________________________________
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Curtis, Gwen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MAPS-L] FW: Merged records for topos
I've not yet had a response from any map catalogers about the following issue. I've put my project on hold until I can come up with an edition statement to use. I've been told by one of our book catalogers that it is practice to avoid using the concept of "not something" in edition statements, but I can't come up with a statement to use that isn't negative. Short of going back and adding [Woodland edition] to all topos that show the woodlands in green, I'm not sure what to do. Any suggestions from those of you who catalog maps would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Gwen Curtis
Map Collection
410C Science Library
University of Kentucky Libraries
Lexington, KY 40506-0039
(859) 257-1853
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis, Gwen
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:37 AM
To: 'Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc.' <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Merged records for topos
The conversation on Maps-L about merging records prompted me to check some of my records and I found that, yes, I do have a problem with about 240 pairs of merged records. So, I am seeking input from map catalogers as to the wording of an edition statement to use.
I have been working on a project to catalog our collection of Kentucky topographic maps. As you probably know, most of the early topos were issued with a woodland overprint, but some were also issued separately without it. The maps are essentially the same otherwise, so when I have both maps in my collection I've cataloged them separately and added 500 notes to each record to indicate the difference, e.g.
500 Woods not shown on this edition.
500 Woods shown in green.
I'll soon be sending OCLC a list of records so that they can pull the pairs apart. From what Jay Weitz has told me, I only need to add an edition statement to one record in each pair of incorrect merges to differentiate the two records. So, I now need to come up with an appropriate edition statement to use. Since inclusion of the woodland symbols is the standard for topos, my intention is to only add an edition statement to those where the woodland symbols have been omitted. Before I do that, I thought I would get input from the map cataloging community about what wording I should use. Possible wording might be ...
250 [Non-woodland edition]
250 [Woodland symbols omitted] (I'm not sure if this is a valid edition statement, but seems most clear to me)
I then plan to retain the 500 notes on both records.
Please note that these are not the editions where both contours and woodland symbols are omitted. I have already identified those with a 250 field stating [Planimetric edition].
I should also mention that when I found member records in OCLC I presumed that they were the standard woodland edition unless information in the record indicated otherwise. I then created new records for those without the woodland symbols.
I'd greatly appreciate your input.
Gwen Curtis
Map Collection
410C Science Library
University of Kentucky Libraries
Lexington, KY 40506-0039
(859) 257-1853
[log in to unmask]
|
