I, too, am sorry to be getting to this so very late, but was away on vacation
all of last week and couldn't get to it the week before when the original
questions from Gayle came out.

Let me first note that without examining the actual items my responses are
based partly on conjecture, mostly on the fullness and accuracy of Gayle's
descriptions in her questions, so, its possible that I might give an incorrect
reply based on my not fully interpreting the questions correctly. But, after a
little investigating of both AACR2 rules and OCLC Bib. Input Standards here's
my two cents' worth:

1. Velma has a very good point, change in cartographic content may be so
subtle, e.g. one road has been expanded or moved, that its not too safe to
assume the various issues are alike, i.e., are the same edition, other than the
title change. I admit that without seeing these I fully trust in Gayle's
assessment though. I read the difinitions for "Edition" and "Reprint" in the
glossary of AACR2R (1998 ed.) and this seems to boil down to whether the change
in title (subtitle?) signals a change in edition to me. Of course, its the
change in cartographic content that is tantamount to the whole thing...but I
also checked into what does and does not constitute creating a new record in
OCLC's Worldcat database, specific to the 245 field, subfields "a", "n", and
"p", and Bib. Input Standards says: "Specific differences in the wording of the
title proper (other than those noted above) justify a new record." So, if the
title proper has changed then you can clearly create new records for each map,
but if in Gayle's estimation it is the additional title information that is
changing, i.e. information in subfield "b", then you cannot create a new record
based on this one change according to the guidelines; "Absence or presence of
field 245 subfield ‡b does not justify a new record. For other differences to
justify a new record, use the criteria under field 245 subfields ‡a, ‡n, ‡p."
If it were me I would lean towards there likely being subtle differences in the
cartographic content and I would create new records for each of these maps.

2. I recognized the title involved in this question instantly and recalled that
earlier this year I cataloged the map by the same name (see OCLC# 49054727),
specifically the one that has "October 2001" on it. Gayle's question is twofold
here actually: (1) which is more important/is the primary item, the book or the
map(s)? and (2) are the maps essentially copies since only the date printed on
them really differs? Well, in my case I only received the map to catalog, which
may mean that is all we received on depository, or, more likely, the map was
separated from the book at the point of arrival in our Gov't Docs/Social
Sciences unit so that the book could be cataloged and kept in that collection
while the map went to our map collection. (I vaguely recall that we found out
later that we really did receive the book with the maps and the book, with maps
as accompanying material, was cataloged for Gov Docs while the loose map was
deemed a 2nd copy and I cataloged it separately for the map collection--but I
digress)  Reviewing both Phil's and Velma's responses I think both are
acceptable as is, basically if your library has decided that the book is the
primary item and cataloged it as such with maps as accompanying material then
so be it, as long as they stay together in one physical unit. If the book and
maps are separated to go in two different locations then as Velma noted it is
very important to not only outline this in a note in the record and/or through
one of the 7XX linking fields, but also to give them the same classification so
that it is very easy for the patron to retrieve both to be used together. The
answer to the 2nd issue, are the maps copies of each other, seems to fall into
the "yes" category to me if you again follow OCLC's Bib. Input Standards,
particularly for the 500 field. However, this whole issue may be moot if both
maps are treated as accompanying material and the book was accepted as the
primary item for cataloging purposes.

Sincerely,

Paige

Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>


>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 08:40:12 -0400
>From: "Parker, Velma" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: New edition/version vs. reprint  1.additional titles 2. Same
>To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>Cc: "Mary Larsgaard (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>,
> "Paige Andrew (E-mail)" <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
>Original-recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask]
>
>Sorry to be so late in getting to this.  If I am too late, just ignore.
>
>1.  Usually a reissue does have a change to the map.  Often such changes are
>subtle and not readily evident.  I would not take a chance on assuming that
>they had the same cartographic content.  If you are keeping them all, I
>would recommend cataloguing each and, if necessary/useful, using the note
>field to indicated any links among them.
>
>2.  Having worked in a map collection for many years, I would not do what
>your library has chosen to do.  If the maps were acquired for the map
>collection, they are the primary object for cataloguing.  Both maps and the
>book could be catalogued separately and linked through a note, added
>entries, or by the linking field tags, whichever is most useful.  If the
>maps are not stored with the book, they need to have the same classification
>system used for their call numbers as the rest of the maps in the
>collection. However, if you don't have a map collection and/or the maps are
>staying with the book, then what Phil suggested is fine.
>
>The issue about copies depends on whether there has been any change in
>scale.  If they are not both at the same scale, you could not treat them as
>copies.  I am not sure I would treat them as copies anyway.  You could
>catalogue them as a set if you only want one catalogue record for the maps
>although without seeing them is it hard to judge.
>
>Velma Parker
>National Archives of Canada
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 7:27 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: New edition/version vs. reprint 1.additional titles 2. Same
>
>
>>
>>--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:39:21 -0500
>>From: Gayle Porter <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: New edition/version vs. reprint  1.additional titles 2. Same
>>year,          diff. month
>>Sender: Gayle Porter <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello, map colleagues,
>>> I have 2 questions about 2 separate situations in map cataloging (which I
>>> do occasionally):
>>The issue is whether or not the differences described below warrant new
>>records...
>>
>>> 1. New edition/version vs. reprint:additional titles
>>>
>>> I'm cataloging blueprint maps of local townships, and some include
>>> earlier/later issues, all in the same year. Some of the uncataloged maps,
>>> i.e., later issues, differ from the earlier issues *only* in by having
>>> additional titles; all other information is the same. To me, the sole
>>> difference of the additional title doesn't seem significant enough to
>make
>>> a new record. Am I right?
>>>
>>> 2. New edition/version vs. reprint:Same year, diff. month
>>>
>>> I'm cataloging a book with 2 accompanying maps; all three are entitled:
>>> Ecological subsections of southeast Alaska and neighboring areas of
>>> Canada. The book authors are Gregory Nowacki ... [et al.]. There are
>>> separate catalog records for the map and the book, but because the titles
>>> for both are the same, a local decision was made to avoid using the map
>>> record but keep the book record and treat the 2 maps as accompanying
>items
>>> to it, i.e, use one record so that patrons wouldn't be confused. The
>>> problem is that the maps were issued in different months during 2001.
>They
>>> have the same information; the only other differences are: font size and
>>> type in the author area on one map; the map title (on the other map) was
>>> repeated in the upper righthand corner. Again, I don't think these
>>> differences are significant enough to make a new record. Am I right to
>>> treat them as copies? If so, should I make a 500 note in the bib record
>>> describing the month differences?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Gayle Porter
>>> Catalog Librarian
>>> Purdue University Libraries
>>> 1530 Stewart Center, Room 364
>>> West Lafayette, IN 47907-1534
>>> Phone: 765-494-3103    Fax: 765-494-0156
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>--- End Forwarded Message ---
>>
>>
>
>--
>Velma Parker
>National Archives of Canada
>[log in to unmask]   Internet: [log in to unmask]
>(613)996-7611  Fax: (613)995-6575