Jordan,

This is an interesting situation. What I think I would do is record your calculated linear scale first and then add as other scale information the area scale. So my 255 would look like this:

255  Scale approximately 1:23,000,000. "Area scale 1:542,000,000 million."

I'd put the linear scale first since that is what most people expect to see. RDA 7.25.5.3 allows for the recording of addition scale information and by putting the area scale here, you can directly quote the resource.

Susan Moore
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Jordan Hale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi all,

 

We recently received the 2014 Peters world map published by ODT Maps (OCLC #894259592), and I’m a bit befuddled by how the area scale is expressed on the map, and how it should be transcribed in a catalogue record. There are two squares showing equivalent areas in square kilometres and square miles, accompanied by the statement “Area scale 1:542,000,000 million”. This was transcribed in the 255 field of the aforementioned OCLC record as “Area scale [1:542,000,000,000,000]”, which seems a bit on a the tiny side. Measuring a side of one of the squares and calculating a linear scale myself yields approximately 1:23,000,000, which turns out to be close to the square root of 542 trillion. How should these scales be transcribed in the record? As our local policy is to include a number representing the scale within the call number itself, the calculated linear scale is more meaningful within the context of how our collection is organized. I haven’t run into this before – while the concept of an area scale makes a lot of sense, in practice the vast difference between the area and linear scales is confusing.

 

Any advice would be appreciated!

 

Thanks,

Jordan

 

Jordan Hale

Original Cataloguer & Reference Specialist

Map & Data Library

University of Toronto

(416) 978-5346

[log in to unmask]

http://mdl.library.utoronto.ca

@UTLmaps