--- Begin Forwarded Message --- >Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:11:23 >From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Cataloging: 300 subfield c, map fragments At 02:31 PM 9/25/98 -0400, you wrote: From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]> 300 subfield is to be information encompassing the published format, or in manuscripts how the item was composed by its author. 500 notes are to describe for published material something that applies to the entire publishing run, mainly to aid in use or identification of the item. If you are describing something that could [be used to identify] an individual copy it would go in a local note. ---------------------------- This is certainly how I've always handled books, but Cartographic Materials 5B2a instructs us to "describe the physical state of the item in hand at the time of cataloguing regardless of how it was issued" and gives examples specifically to show that maps which have been dissected or mounted are described as such in the physical description area, equivalent to our field 300. Are you suggesting that I ignore the rule? I'm certainly in favor of doing so, if nowadays that's general or at least acceptable practice amongst map catalogers. But I wasn't taught to ignore it, and the Library of Congress' Map Cataloging Manual is silent on the issue, and so are those who (I've heard) are revising Cartographic Materials for the modern, I hope less stringently principled world. The manuscript angle is something of a red herring. Indeed, the only obvious difference is that a 500 instead of a local note field is more often used to describe characteristics of these unique items. The real issue is 3500 fairly old, damaged and repaired maps which oftentimes *will* require enough additional physical description to overburden the 300 in case I follow Cartographic Materials slavishly. I'd like to avoid putting arcane descriptive details on the first screen of the public display, but I need a better authority than my own opinion. --- End Forwarded Message ---