----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Chris, my comments follow each of your paragraphs...
Paige
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Nancy Kandoian's question about the new printing of the
>Yosemite map brings up an embarrassingly elementary
>cataloging question:
>
>When a map's printing date and publication date differ,
>which date is supposed to go in the 260c (and the 008
>publication date slot)? It's my impression that the great
>majority of libraries that contribute to OCLC use the
>printing date here, certainly in the case of USGS maps where
>the tiny date just beyond the lower right edge of the
>neatline gets put in the 260c. However, some libraries
>(including, often, LC) prefer to use the publication date in
>the 260c and to put the printing date in subfield g of the
>260 (in parentheses). Contrast OCLC 19481445 (GPO) and
>21445385 (DLC) for an example. (It may be relevant that the
>(book) catalogers in this library, if I've understood them
>correctly, go so far as to argue that the printing date,
>if it needs to be recorded at all, should go in a local
>note.)
With the exception of the USGS publications that have the printing date in
the lower right border of the map and are used as the publication date in
both 260c and the fixed field because typically it happens to be the latest
date shown on the map and is therefore inferred to be a publication date
always use the publication date given on the map for both the 260c and the
008. Now, there are lots of variations on this because often we have to
infer publication dates in one way or another. In addition you have the
option of adding the printing date in subfield "g" in the 260 field, but
printing dates should not appear in the 008 *unless* they have been used as
the publication date. As for creating a general note for a printing date,
personally it seems a waste of time unless there is some compelling reason
to clarify its use elsewhere in the record. If you want to create a local
(590) note to indicate a printing date for your patrons that is up to you.
>
>A related issue is what to do with the call
>number. Shouldn't the date in the call number be the
>publication date rather than the printing date since that
>must be closer to the date of situation? And, in the case
>of a reprint, shouldn't one then add the printing date after
>the author Cutter? This doesn't exactly seem to be what
>libraries usually do, but see OCLC 25170639 for an example
>(from GIS).
The date in the call number should *always* be the date of situation if that
can be determined! Quite often the publication date becomes the date used in
the call number because there is not a clear statement somewhere on the map
to indicate date of situation, e.g. "land ownership current as of Jan. 1,
1996" or "geology surveyed in 1947". If you have multiple dates on the map
to choose from and none of them indicate date of situation then use the
latest date given on the map. Please do not add a printing date after the
author cutter, the "double date" circumstance is to be used for map
reproductions where the first date indicates the date of the original map
and the second date in the call number indicates the reproduction date.
>
>I realize that the concepts "publication date" and
>"printing date" don't always fit map publishing practices
>very well and that the whole question is somewhat
>complicated by the USGS updating patterns about which Nancy
>writes. But I'm really inquiring about the cataloging rules.
You are quite correct here in the publication practices for maps can be
elusive and sometimes confusing. And, again correctly, USGS as well as the
U.S. Forest Service and some other government agencies have muddied the
waters with their practices at times. If I can be of further assistance to
you, Nancy, or others on this topic please don't hesitate to email me or
call me. I might not have all the answers but am willing to help as much as
possible (and if I don't have an answer often times I can turn to folks at
LC who do)
Paige
>
>Please forgive my asking about what may be an ancient map
>cataloging issue. It's one I feel very confused about and
>certainly one on which map catalogers are extremely
>inconsistent.
>
>Thanks for any answers.
>
>Chris Winters
>University of Chicago Library
>
>Internet: [log in to unmask]
>
|
