--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:09:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: a subject cataloging question <fwd>
 
 
 
> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:27:57 -0500
> From: nkandoian <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: a subject cataloging question
>
>      I'm wondering if map catalogers can tell me about practices in their
>      libraries in regard to the use of free-floating subdivisions for maps.
>       Are some subdivisions (e.g. Early works to 1800) used only after one
>      heading even if they apply to all subject headings, to save on typing
>      or avoid repetition, on the theory that certain kinds of searching
>      (keyword or limiting) will allow  retrieval of the records in any
>      case?
 
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, but I can describe mine
and my library's practice.
 
I use free-floating subdivisions wherever and whenever the sub-heading
applies to a particular item.  The subject headings are attached to
records for particular items, which is what I don't understand about the
question.  If a heading is 'just there ' and doesnt' describe a particular
map or book, how does anyone know where the item it doesn't describe is
located?  There's no call number or title to look for.
 
>      For some free-floaters that are also subject headings (e.g.
>      Maps, Manuscript; Maps--Facsimiles; Maps, Pictorial), do some
>      libraries use these only once in a record as a subject heading, rather
>      than repeatedly as a subheading to each heading to which they can
>      properly be attached?  I am asking not only about the proper way to
>      handle these headings, but also about the local practices that
>      libraries may employ, which may vary from the rules.  And how have
>      these variant practices come about?
 
I have had no occasion, thus far to use these as direct subject headings.
I would be likely to use these as subject headings only for materials that
are about those things.  In other words, Maps, Manuscript as a subject
heading would be for a work ABOUT manuscript maps, not for manuscript
maps.  The subdivision is a FORMAT heading; it is a SUBJECT heading
otherwise.
 
>
>      For example, for a pre-1800 manuscript chart of Delaware Bay showing
>      also the Jersey shore, might some libraries use headings such as the
>      following:
 
I think I would be more likely to choose the latter group than the former.
 
>
>      Nautical charts--Delaware Bay (Del. and N.J.).
I understand this to be for a book on nautical charts of Delaware Bay.
 
>      Coasts--Delaware--Maps.
>      Coasts--New Jersey--Maps.
 
This might be useful for a study of the litoral region.
 
>      Maps, Manuscript--Early works to 1800.
 
This is not a useful subject heading for maps.  This would be useful for a
book about such materials, but not for a collection of them.
 
>
>      rather than:
>
>      Delaware Bay (Del. and N.J.)--Maps, Manuscript--Early works to 1800.
>      Nautical charts--Delaware Bay (Del. and N.J.)--Early works to 1800.
>      Coasts--Delaware--Maps, Manuscript--Early works to 1800.
>      Coasts--New Jersey--Maps, Manuscript--Early works to 1800.  ?
>
>      Was there some discussion related to this issue at recent MAGERT
>      meetings, in the context of form and genre terms for maps, and use of
>      the 655 versus subfield v?
>
>      Your comments about your local practices will be appreciated.  Please
>      respond to the list unless you prefer some level of confidentiality.
>
>
>      Nancy Kandoian
>      NYPL Map Division
>      [log in to unmask]
> --- End Forwarded Message ---
>
 
 
_________________________________________
Ken Grabach         <[log in to unmask]>
Documents and Maps Librarian
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA
--- End Forwarded Message ---