-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        RE: MAPS-L: Classifying a small map collection using LC?
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:10:37 -0500
From:   Tom Koenig <[log in to unmask]>
To:     Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>



You have the perfect opportunity to do yourself and your users a favor.
I would suggest that you start using LC classification for you map
collection.

Your users will benefit from the fact that you are using a standard
classification system whose general form they should already be familiar
with from their use of the other materials in your collection. Since LC
G classification groups materials by geographic location, but also
allows for subject classification it should also give you more
flexibility and accuracy in the arrangement of you maps.

The benefits to you will also come from standardization. With a local
system of arrangement you always have to maintain local expertise in
maintaining and applying your local scheme to new materials. This also
means that only those conversant with your local scheme can use it
correctly. With LC classification you eliminate the maintenance of a
local scheme and you open up the cataloging of map materials to other
catalogers who should be able to apply the LC system since you use it
for your other materials. LC map classification does have its
peculiarities but those are well documented. Since many other libraries
use LC map classification you will also get ready made call numbers in
much of the copy cataloging that you do.

We had a similar situation years ago with an uncataloged Connecticut
state documents collection. The collection was arranged in an obscure
classification system maintained locally. We had the option of switching
to LC classification at the time but didn't. Over time it became
apparent, for the same reasons I mention above, that we would be better
off with LC classification for these documents so we switched to the LC
scheme. Ultimately it did make sense to switch to LC but we are stuck
with the reclassification of about 1600 titles if we want an integrated
collection.

I don't think you could go wrong by using LC classification instead of a
local scheme.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum [mailto:MAPS-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maps-L
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: MAPS-L: Classifying a small map collection using LC?
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Classifying a small map collection using LC?
> Date:   Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:52:04 -0500
> From:   Carolyn Bowen <[log in to unmask]>
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> CC:     Carolyn Bowen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> All,
>
> We have a small map collection (~20,000 maps) that is hidden away on a
> lower level; the only entrance is through a stairway door just outside
a
> reference librarian's office.  The collection is, for the most part,
> uncataloged and underused.  Maps are arranged by a locally devised
scheme
> based primarily on collating items alphabetically by geographic area.
>
> Due to the absorption of a significant collection, historically housed
> elsewhere on campus, space is being reallocated.  We are considering
moving
> the map collection to a section of the reference area on the first
floor.
>
> What would be the pros and cons of adopting LC-classification for the
> maps?  We are starting to catalog the maps and are trying to decide
whether
> classifying them using LC would be helpful to potential users.
>
> Carolyn Bowen
> Multi-formats Cataloger
> Jackson Library
> University of North Carolina, Greensboro
> P.O. Box 26170
> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
>
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> telephone: 336-334-5781