----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Okay, my turn to take a stab at this. I appreciated Phil Hoehn's comments,
they helped me focus mine a bit.
I agree with Phil's assertion that classifying maps by SuDoc number is,
well, not necessarily "idiotic", but at least short-sighted and does not do
the user a favor at all. Map collections are best arranged in a geographic
format, SuDocs of course is an arrangement by government agency. The
Library of Congress classification system, using the G-Schedule in
particular, is the most widely used system of its kind for arranging map
collections, and is a geographic arrangement. Let's allow our map
collection users to use something inherently more of a "common sense"
approach, as well as allowing folks who use different map collections the
opportunity to take their skill in finding maps in one collection to others
without having to re-learn another arrangement method.
As for the USGS topo quads in particular, an alphabetical arrangement by
state, sub-arranged by sheet name is just fine! For one, the collection
should have all of the indexes, one for each state, that lists the sheet
names plus has a map index to go by. This is one of the easier ways to
allow your patrons to use these maps, most folk understand alphabetic
arrangements. This also takes less time for your staff to maintain. If you
do want to catalog these maps (and who doesn't? as it provides on online
record in the local online union catalog) most collections at least have
provided one record for the United States as a whole with a call number like:
G3701
s24
.G4
From there, the user can then come to the collection and use the
alphabetic/indexed system pretty quickly and easily.
Here at PSU (er, Penn State that is) we wanted to both provide access to
the individual sheet for all sheets in Pennsylvania, and to each of the
other states separately, plus be able to get a grip on the various copies
and editions of each sheet that we hold. Melissa Lamont and I worked out
both a bibliographic arrangement that works and a technological method for
tracking our holdings down to copy and edition specific level. Now that we
have mounted a patron-level link to our Innovacq holdings records, which is
where we placed copy and edition info. for each quad sheet, a patron can
look up a bib. record in the online catalog for either a specific sheet if
its in Pennsylvania (and, of course, we created a "parent" record for
Pennsylvania as a whole too) or a record for any of the other states and
then be able to go into Innovacq to check on the Libraries' holdings for
any edition we may have. A co-authored article about the process we went
through, and reasoning for handling our 7.5 minute topo quads this way, is
forthcoming in early 1998 in _Technical Services Quarterly_. Its titled
"Bending the Rules: Creatively Adapting Library Systems to Automate the Map
Collection".
Finally, Phil's words to the wise regarding very carefully formulating your
Marcive profile, should the institution decide to continue in that
direction are worth following. The same goes for setting up any kind of
arrangement for a recon project contracted outside of your institution. We
recently mounted Marcive records for maps at our place and have had little
problems in retrieval, thanks much to the folks who spent much time in the
profiling process. I know folks like HelenJane Armstrong at Florida State
University Libraries Map Collection have been using Marcive records for
some time and they went through a period of getting the best out of those
records.
I hope this two cents worth helps Mr. Kohut in his discussions with his
Cataloging Department.
Sincerely,
At 09:51 AM 10/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> This is a request for information from J. Kohut at Portland State
> University who is not on the list, please reply to him
> ([log in to unmask]).
>
> The catalogers at PSU are discussing plans to recon the map collection
> using Marchive records with SuDoc classifications; currently the topo
> maps are arranged alphabetically by state and quad name and the rest
> of the collection is organized geographically (although I am not sure
> if it is using LC). I get the impression that the catalogers are being
> quite insistent about this and Mr. Kohut would appreciate information
> which he can bring to the discussions which would help him counteract
> their intentions. Of course, if anyone feels that SuDoc organization
> would be an improvement he would like to hear that also.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joanne Perry
> Map Librarian, Oregon State University
> [log in to unmask]
>
Mr. Paige G. Andrew
Maps/Nonbook Cataloger
E506 Pattee Library
Pennsylvania State University Libraries
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
[log in to unmask]
phone: 814-865-1755
fax: 814-863-7293