Hi Gwen,
What about "Woodland edition" and "Topographic edition" for the two different versions? You can add a note to explain "Topographic edition lacks woodland features" or something like that.
Angie
________________________________________
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Curtis, Gwen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MAPS-L] FW: Merged records for topos
I've not yet had a response from any map catalogers about the following issue. I've put my project on hold until I can come up with an edition statement to use. I've been told by one of our book catalogers that it is practice to avoid using the concept of "not something" in edition statements, but I can't come up with a statement to use that isn't negative. Short of going back and adding [Woodland edition] to all topos that show the woodlands in green, I'm not sure what to do. Any suggestions from those of you who catalog maps would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Gwen Curtis
Map Collection
410C Science Library
University of Kentucky Libraries
Lexington, KY 40506-0039
(859) 257-1853
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis, Gwen
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:37 AM
To: 'Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc.' <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Merged records for topos
The conversation on Maps-L about merging records prompted me to check some of my records and I found that, yes, I do have a problem with about 240 pairs of merged records. So, I am seeking input from map catalogers as to the wording of an edition statement to use.
I have been working on a project to catalog our collection of Kentucky topographic maps. As you probably know, most of the early topos were issued with a woodland overprint, but some were also issued separately without it. The maps are essentially the same otherwise, so when I have both maps in my collection I've cataloged them separately and added 500 notes to each record to indicate the difference, e.g.
500 Woods not shown on this edition.
500 Woods shown in green.
I'll soon be sending OCLC a list of records so that they can pull the pairs apart. From what Jay Weitz has told me, I only need to add an edition statement to one record in each pair of incorrect merges to differentiate the two records. So, I now need to come up with an appropriate edition statement to use. Since inclusion of the woodland symbols is the standard for topos, my intention is to only add an edition statement to those where the woodland symbols have been omitted. Before I do that, I thought I would get input from the map cataloging community about what wording I should use. Possible wording might be ...
250 [Non-woodland edition]
250 [Woodland symbols omitted] (I'm not sure if this is a valid edition statement, but seems most clear to me)
I then plan to retain the 500 notes on both records.
Please note that these are not the editions where both contours and woodland symbols are omitted. I have already identified those with a 250 field stating [Planimetric edition].
I should also mention that when I found member records in OCLC I presumed that they were the standard woodland edition unless information in the record indicated otherwise. I then created new records for those without the woodland symbols.
I'd greatly appreciate your input.
Gwen Curtis
Map Collection
410C Science Library
University of Kentucky Libraries
Lexington, KY 40506-0039
(859) 257-1853
[log in to unmask]
|
