I'm sure many of us have used the 246 field as a means of making sure these title access points show up if a patron does a title request in a search (I'm sure I'm guilty too), so though not technically correct to use it in this manner when the map(s) is/are the accompanying material to another resource at least it meets the highest need -- patron access. Of course, that also depends on whether the local system is set up to index the 246 fields in all of their variabilities and display them to the patron (same with the 740 et al.). We catalogers try our best to use the MARC fields comprehensively but if they aren't indexed in a local system they don't do much good for our patrons. Paige From: "David J. Bertuca" <[log in to unmask]> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:32:00 AM Subject: Re: cataloguing question That is what I started to write last night before I got distracted by a request from a patron… I usually would add the title of the map that supplemented a book, using the 246. Though partly, this was done because I was not encouraged to treat the maps as special, by our monograph-thinking cataloger. I have always tried to include all the access points that I can. The 246 was considered acceptable by my department. I also would add a note field to express the description of the map, and description field would include it as normal. Some of the map supplements were unique enough that I felt it important to give them this treatment. In many cases, the users wanted the maps more than the books they accompanied. I can see your points as well. From an indexing point of view, in the online world, either fields (246/7xx) will provide access. 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) [log in to unmask] Liaison to the Geography Department for GIS and Physical Geography From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paige G. Andrew Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 3:05 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: cataloguing question I wholeheartedly agree with Nancy's assessment. The use of the 773 allows for the title of the book to be brought out if the maps are considered the primary resource. However, if cataloging the book as the primary resource the 246 should be reserved for alternate, variant, or additional title types related to the book, while a 740 or 700/710 with $t should be used for the titles of the maps since they are the "analytic" in this case. Paige From: "Nancy Kandoian" < [log in to unmask] > To: " [log in to unmask] " < [log in to unmask] > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:43:36 PM Subject: Re: cataloguing question But since 246 is for "varying form of title," wouldn't a 7xx (either 740, or a 700 or 710 with a subfield t, and then a second indicator 2) be more appropriate for an analytic (like a map within a book)? I think of "varying form of title" as another or variant title of the main work being cataloged, like a panel title versus a title on the face of a map, or a spine title versus a title-page title of a book. Nancy ++++++++++++++ Nancy A. Kandoian Map Cataloger The Lionel Pincus and Princess Firyal Map Division, Room 117 Stephen A. Schwarzman Building The New York Public Library 5th Avenue and 42nd Street New York, New York 10018 (212) 930 0586 On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Bertuca, David < [log in to unmask] > wrote: 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) [log in to unmask] 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 tel:+30-2109549170 [log in to unmask]