-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Cataloging of atlases Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:05:51 -0500 From: Falato, Brian <[log in to unmask]> ------------------ Atlases used to be cataloged as just another type of monograph. Now the cataloging focus is on the cartographic aspects. On OCLC, the MARC record has fixed fields for the maps format that are different from the monographic format. This can cause a difference in the browse or index displays in the public catalog. The question came up at my library whether it was worth it to try to change records for atlases that were not cataloged on the maps format. There is a potential source for confusion when the library has more than one edition of an atlas, for instance, and the earlier edition was cataloged using monographic format while the more recent edition was cataloged on the map format. Is the fact that the public catalog may label the later edition as a map (or cartographic resource or a similar term) on the browse display while not doing so for the earlier edition a problem? Are patrons getting shortchanged if they limit a search to maps/cartographic material and don't get all the material that should be retrieved on a search because some atlases are not cataloged on maps format and thus get left out in a search limited to cartographic material? Or have reference librarians taught patrons ways to work around this problem so the patrons get what they want and are not confused by sear! ch results? I was aked to post this question to get a feeling for what other libraries are doing. By posting to Maps-L, I hope to get responses not only from catalogers, but also the views of reference librarians who provide cartographic reference service. Brian Falato Serials/Maps Cataloger University of South Florida Tampa Campus Library Tampa, FL 33620 (813)974-1772 [log in to unmask]