-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: MAPS-L: cataloging query - plots from digital originals
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:55:51 -0400
From:   Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>





Ken,

I was away all last week teaching two basic map cataloging workshops at
UCLA and UC-Davis and didn't have a chance to respond to this query
before heading out to California on the 9th.

I think you have all the bases covered, and I'm glad you mentioned the
GMD too. Just as a reminder to all map catalogers who are supplying bib.
records on OCLC, we should not provide a GMD unless it is the one for
"electronic resource" in the case of digital cartographic materials.
This follows both LC practice and OCLC's request to follow this practice
for hardcopy maps. If you want to provide the "cartographic materials"
GMD in your local records that is your choice. In my opinion even though
the original image came from a digital source, you are cataloging the
hardcopy output and thus I cannot imagine applying the GMD in this case
or similar ones (except possibly locally as I mentioned above).

Thanks,

Paige

At 04:06 PM 7/7/2006, you wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        cataloging query - plots from digital originals
> Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:23:33 -0400 (EDT)
> From:   Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Hello, cataloguing colleagues.
>
> Has anyone had any experience in cataloging maps printed on plotter from a
> digital original?  I recently acquired a nearly complete set of Nicaragua
> 1:250,000, plotted from digital originals produced by INETER, Nicaragua,
> 2002-2004.  The plotted copies were produced on demand by a vendor, Omni
> Maps (Thanks, Russell, they are very high quality).
>
> I find there is no record for an INETER set of Nicaragua 1:250,000 in
> OCLC, so that a new record needs to be created.  There are some aspects of
> these that are similar to photocopies, and some aspects that are
> different.  There are some minimal similarities to the cataloging of the
> digital originals, but scale is actual rather than nominal.
>
> As best as I can tell, the relevant MARC fields would be 007 for
> Cartographic materials, 300 subfield b, for physical description, and
> possibly a 500 note.  The digital versions apparently do not have a
> printed border or neat line, but the printed map area is clearly defined
> so the dimensions, subfield c of 300, should not be difficult to apply.
> For 'normal' printed maps I follow LC practice and do not use a general
> material descriptor, subfield h, in field 245.  Is this an instance where
> such would be recommended?
>
> Ken
> ___________________________
> Ken Grabach                           <[log in to unmask]>
> Maps Librarian                         Phone: 513-529-1726
> Miami University Libraries
> Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA
>
>
> --