----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The University of Chicago Library's home-grown on-line catalog was finally altered a year and a half ago so that it could accept map records. Since that time the Cataloging Dept. here has done original cataloging of a few dozen items and has also attached our symbol (CGU) to a couple of hundred OCLC records. In addition Map Collection staff have added nearly 4000 records to our on-line catalog, mostly from OCLC copy, that indicate that an item is indeed available; in theory, these records are to be upgraded in the coming years. Of course this is just a drop in the bucket in a collection containing nearly 80,000 titles (this assumes ca. 5 sheets per title), but you've got to start somewhere. All this leads to a vague question. Cataloging has said it would be willing to continue to do a small amount of original map cataloging (as well as to handle new titles that come in through Acquisitions). I'm a bit at a loss as to whether it's best to send them older items or to choose among recent publications for which there is no cataloging copy available. Metaphorically, it's a choice between doing, e.g., an 18th-century map of the Ganges Delta or a current St. Louis transit map, i.e., between cataloging materials that are most likely to be of real scholarly significance, or getting a little closer to the goal of at least having a complete on-line record of recent acquisitions (in our case in an on-line catalog where only a small amount of recon has been done). I'd be especially grateful to get advice from folks at the relatively few institutions that have been as backward about map cataloging as this one, but analogous dilemmas must be widespread. (It's worth mentioning that Cataloging has indicated it isn't anxious to deal with large sets of topos.) Thanks, and sorry to go on for so long! Chris Winters University of Chicago Library Bitnet: uclwint@uchimvs1 Internet: [log in to unmask]