-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: cataloging reproductions question
Date:   Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:52:26 -0400
From:   Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To:     [log in to unmask]




Patricia,

You are right on target! And, your timing is uncanny too, a full-blown
article on cataloging these types of materials is forthcoming in vol. 5,
no. 1 of the /Journal of Map and Geography Libraries/, to be published
in early 2009, complete with illustrations of the different types of
reproductions and bib. record examples.

Basically, the cart. materials cataloging community decided (I believe
first formally through the Library of Congress Geography and Map
Division) that the best way to describe all reproductions of maps is to
describe the item in hand and provide details about the original, if
they are denoted on the reproduction or one also has the original (or if
you have the time to do the research and can accurately determine the
original from a cartobibliography or similar source) in a 534 field.
This has served our community well because so many of us have things
like blue line or black line prints that fill "gaps" in our collections,
no matter how they were originally collected. Sometimes even the ugly
things are worthwhile to keep, and so they need to be cataloged as well
as those items that are original publications.

Sincerely,

Paige

At 04:41 PM 4/8/2008, you wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: cataloging reproductions question
> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:35:48 -0400
> From: Dragon, Patricia M <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I apologize if this question has been asked before, but I searched the
> archives and could not find the answer spelled out in so many words. Am
> I correct that the map cataloging community generally (including those
> who contribute to OCLC) ignores LCRI 1.11A which draws a distinction
> between ?on-demand? photocopies and formal facsimiles that constitute
> new editions, and says that for on-demand photocopies the description
> should be based on the original, with the details of the reproduction in
> a 533 note? In looking at Cartographic Materials 1.11, it seems so, but
> then I wasn?t sure of the impact of OCLC on this.
>
> Some background: I am cataloging some photocopies (and formal reprints)
> that have been lying uncataloged in our map collection for 40 years. We
> don?t own the originals. In some cases, it?s difficult to tell what the
> original was or find a description of it. In other cases, in particular
> the formal facsimiles, it is not so difficult. Based on Cartographic
> Materials 1.11, I am thinking for all of them of describing the item in
> hand, with a 534 containing information about the original (as much as
> we have). Fixed field DtSt would be r, with Date1 being the date of the
> item in hand, Date2 being the date of the original. Can someone(s) with
> more map cataloging experience confirm I?m on the right track?
>
> Thanks so much,
>
> Patricia
>
> Patricia M. Dragon
>
> Special Collections Cataloging, Metadata, and Authorities Coordinator
>
> Joyner Library
>
> East Carolina University
>
> Greenville NC 27858
>
> (252) 328-0296
>
> [log in to unmask] < mailto:[log in to unmask]>