--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:11:23
>From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Cataloging: 300 subfield c, map fragments
 
 
 
At 02:31 PM 9/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
 
From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
 
300 subfield is to be information encompassing the published format, or in
manuscripts how the item was composed by its author.  500 notes are to
describe for published material something that applies to the entire
publishing run, mainly to aid in use or identification of the item.  If you
are describing something that could [be used to identify] an individual
copy it would go in a local note.
----------------------------
 
This is certainly how I've always handled books, but Cartographic Materials
5B2a instructs us to "describe the physical state of the item in hand at
the time of cataloguing regardless of how it was issued" and gives examples
specifically to show that maps which have been dissected or mounted are
described as such in the physical description area, equivalent to our field
300.
 
Are you suggesting that I ignore the rule?  I'm certainly in favor of doing
so, if nowadays that's general or at least acceptable practice amongst map
catalogers.  But I wasn't taught to ignore it, and the Library of Congress'
Map Cataloging Manual is silent on the issue, and so are those who (I've
heard) are revising Cartographic Materials for the modern, I hope less
stringently principled world.
 
The manuscript angle is something of a red herring.  Indeed, the only
obvious difference is that a 500 instead of a local note field is more
often used to describe characteristics of these unique items.
 
The real issue is 3500 fairly old, damaged and repaired maps which
oftentimes *will* require enough additional physical description to
overburden the 300 in case I follow Cartographic Materials slavishly.  I'd
like to avoid putting arcane descriptive details on the first screen of the
public display, but I need a better authority than my own opinion.
 
--- End Forwarded Message ---