-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: cataloging reproductions question
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:45:07 -0400
From: Patricia Dragon <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Thanks so much for your reply, Paige. It's so nice to have confirmation,
lest I go and mess up shared cataloging!
Patricia
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:19:59 -0500, Maps-L Moderator <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: cataloging reproductions question
>Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:10:12 -0400
>From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>After re-reading this note I thought I should jump in with a quick
>word about Patricia's questions on the DtSt situation for
>reproductions. Yes, since the call number and usually 260$c
>information uses two dates, one for the original or date of situation
>if known, and one for the reproduction itself, the DtSt fixed field
>would be coded "r".
>
>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]>
|
