----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Nancy Kandoian's question about the new printing of the Yosemite map brings up an embarrassingly elementary cataloging question: When a map's printing date and publication date differ, which date is supposed to go in the 260c (and the 008 publication date slot)? It's my impression that the great majority of libraries that contribute to OCLC use the printing date here, certainly in the case of USGS maps where the tiny date just beyond the lower right edge of the neatline gets put in the 260c. However, some libraries (including, often, LC) prefer to use the publication date in the 260c and to put the printing date in subfield g of the 260 (in parentheses). Contrast OCLC 19481445 (GPO) and 21445385 (DLC) for an example. (It may be relevant that the (book) catalogers in this library, if I've understood them correctly, go so far as to argue that the printing date, if it needs to be recorded at all, should go in a local note.) A related issue is what to do with the call number. Shouldn't the date in the call number be the publication date rather than the printing date since that must be closer to the date of situation? And, in the case of a reprint, shouldn't one then add the printing date after the author Cutter? This doesn't exactly seem to be what libraries usually do, but see OCLC 25170639 for an example (from GIS). I realize that the concepts "publication date" and "printing date" don't always fit map publishing practices very well and that the whole question is somewhat complicated by the USGS updating patterns about which Nancy writes. But I'm really inquiring about the cataloging rules. Please forgive my asking about what may be an ancient map cataloging issue. It's one I feel very confused about and certainly one on which map catalogers are extremely inconsistent. Thanks for any answers. Chris Winters University of Chicago Library Internet: [log in to unmask]