Atlas: Map or Book?

I'm entering in records for several atlases, and so far the entries I've pulled have been labelled as maps by the library sources. These are traditional atlases, bound into traditional hardcover books.

I'm curious why it seems to be the standard across at least a few different libraries to record these atlases as maps instead of books.

Generally, you catalog the content. Yes, an atlas is a book; but that's the container, not the content.

https://www1.columbia.edu/sec/cu/libraries/inside/clio/docs/bcd/cpm/cpmspe/cpm69... -- is a great explanation for is it a book or an atlas.

>2 lesmel:

So if I have a book of photographs, it's not a book? It should be catalogued as "photographs"? A book consisting solely of drawings, is not a book? And should be catalogued as "drawings"?

Seems odd to me.

>2 lesmel: Thank you for this resource!

I'm a little curious by what you mean in saying the book is the container and that you catalog the content. Of course I'm cataloging the content, but in this case I'm specifically referring to the 'media' field, which in other contexts is exclusively referring to the container: an ebook, paperback, hardcover, and audiobook of the same work will all have (presumably) the exact same content, it's the container that changes.

The resource you've provided explains when atlases are considered maps, but I still don't really understand why. A hardcover book that contains 50% or more paintings doesn't reclassify the book from hardcover to painting, for example, so I'm confused about why it's different in this instance.

>3 lilithcat:

As I recall – and it's been a while – a book(let)/fascicle of original art would be catalogued differently from a book of reproductions of that same art.

Plus, Library of Congress considers photography to be a technology.

>3 lilithcat: Cataloging isn't applied equally. This is specific to atlases vs maps. I dunno what to tell you. I'm not a cataloger. I hate cataloging.

>4 GraceCollection: As mentioned above, I'm not a cataloger. I can give you generic cataloging advice and basic explanations as to why something gets cataloged one way versus another. The phrase "cataloger's discretion" is used A LOT because cataloging is so subjective. It's based on what kind of collection a library has, what topics, etc. Because cataloging is subjective, you get to decide what you want to use.

Ok, so again. Not a cataloger; but here's my understanding of "content vs. container." MARC records have a number of fixed fields (these are field where there are 1-4 characters that code various things about the item being described). Two of those fixed fields are LEADER 06 (Type of Record) and LEADER 07 (Bibliographic Level). https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bdleader.html

06 - Type of record
Used to differentiate MARC records created for various types of content and material and to determine the appropriateness and validity of certain data elements in the record.

07 - Bibliographic level
LC MARC 21 Bibliographic doesn't explain this field; but it's the container (the physical format) of the content.

A MARC record puts these two fields together to tell you what you are holding in your hand.

em = book of maps or single map -- perfect example of why I hate cataloging. A single foldable map can be coded em and so can a 150 page spiral-bound book of maps.

Having said all of that, I could be wrong about how I'm interpreting the MARC 21 Guidelines.

It may have to do with where the atlases are shelved. Also, very few people are going to take a normal atlas and 'read' it. Of the atlases are with the (other) maps, they are more likely to be used, and if they are kept with the maps, they are probably catalogued the same way the maps are.

Book!

(But IDK.)

>8 MarthaJeanne: This does make sense, but personally if the MARC record I pulled up for a resource I knew I needed said the resource was a map, I would be likely to skip over any physical book atlases housed in the same section when looking for it. At least, before finding this out, I would have, and I assume the average patron searching the catalog would as well.

There are other ways to make sure certain materials are housed together; after all, I've never seen a library that separates hardcovers from paperback regardless of their contents.

I do agree that atlases aren't quite 'reading' material. They're housed with the reference books here, dictionaries and the like. No maps, besides the ones on the wall. Perhaps if this library cataloged maps I would see this more clearly.

>10 GraceCollection: technically, it's not "map," it's "cartographic material" (so atlases and also globes, digital maps, etc., which can be coded in 007)--but I think there would be something in the indexed fields (like 300, physical description; 500s, notes; 600s, subjects) that would indicate to the user whether it was a map or an atlas. (Such as, an atlas would have a number of pages; a standalone map would have sheets).

You could also use physical description to note that the item was a book/volume with a certain number of maps (illustrations, etc.).

I think! for some reason there was more emphasis on Festschrifts in cataloging? (I think my professor just thought they were cool?) and not much on maps...

>11 catscoffeecats: Don't start me on Festschrifts and stuff like that. I've spent quite some time as ordinary user of our math departments library trying to find books that were to found (eventually) in Elementary Books, Festschrifts etc that were seperately shelved random (to my mind at least) places in the library.

I think some of them were marked with location: festschrifts etc. But if you as ordinary user don't know where that is located you still have to go ask a Librarian! :-)

Of course now I'm older and wiser and my own system of random stacks of random books is much better :-)

>11 catscoffeecats: So perhaps where I'm encountering a snag is not in the records that are being pulled, but the translation from MARC to LT — the category which LT labels 'maps' would perhaps be better described as 'cartographic materials' — although maybe it was reduced to the word 'maps' because 'cartographic materials' is too long for the blank.

>13 GraceCollection: Probably it is distilled to "maps" because that's more widely understood than "cartographic materials." There's a Wiki page about LT media taxonomy: https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/The_LibraryThing_Media_Taxonomy

The taxonomy was not designed to be perfect and all-inclusive. It was designed to be:

reliably calculable from the data known to LibraryThing from bookseller and library sources.

detailed enough for most LibraryThing members. Members can add their own media types to the list.

easy for most members to understand and master.

I know that English-speakers aren't the only users of the site, but for English-speaking people on a books and reading focused site, I would despair if 'cartographic materials' was really too hard to understand (or at least google?).

You may be correct in that being the reason it was chosen, but if so, I resent the implication.

>1 GraceCollection:

May I suggest that if you had mentioned that you are entering records into LT, rather than into an integrated library system with full MARC, our suggestions could have been better focused?

>16 librorumamans: That's my bad, I probably could have made that clearer. It didn't cross my mind that my words could have been taken in a context outside of using LT, but then this isn't the LT FAQ group, is it? Sorry about the confusion I created there.

Nonetheless, I didn't realize that the snag here was from how LT was pulling the records in — my question really was about ILS because I was under the impression that's where 'atlases are maps' was coming from. 'Atlases are cartographic materials' and 'LT translates cartographic materials to maps' didn't cross my mind.