I have used the 246 inclusion to resolve this as the maps are distinct enough that I want to provide access (a lot of geology reports come to mind). It was one way that was acceptable here at UB where cataloging
policy was determined to not provide exceptions or to separate items form their parent record.
David J. Bertuca, Map Librarian
Science and Engineering Information Center
116 Lockwood Memorial Library
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY 14260-2200
716-645-1332 / 716-645-3859 (fax)
Liaison to the Geography Department for GIS and Physical Geography
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ken Rockwell
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: cataloguing question
Hi, Ifigenia,
Something I do In cases where the maps are the accompanying material, but have separate titles and might be of interest by themselves, is to enter a 246 for the map title, preceded by a note, thus: $i Title
of accompanying map: $a [title]
--Ken Rockwell
University of Utah
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of ?F?G????? ??????OS??
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: cataloguing question
Dear all, Happy New Year!
A question for the cataloguing process:
I have a book which has two separate maps in it. Each one has its own title and scale e.t.c.
Should we catalogue each map separately? And use 770 (? Or what else?) to link it with the book?
Or should we follow the simple “+ 2 maps in folder” (there are records in that form).
I believe this is a policy choice but I would like to hear your opinion and how you manage a case like this.
Thanks in advance
Ifigenia Vardakosta
Harokopio University
Library & Information Centre
El.Venizelou 70
176-71 Kallithea,Athens
Greece