---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 14:19:40 -0400
From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Seeking USGS Map Count (fwd)

Brian,

The part of this note that caught my eye was about your wanting to use
Triple-I to capture the holdings involved for each state. May I intercede
and let you know that Melissa Lamont and I wrote an article very similar in
nature to what you are about to tackle in one of Haworth Press'
publications? The full citation is:

Andrew, Paige G. and Melissa Lamont. "Bending the Rules: Creatively
Adapting Library Systems to Automate the Map Collection." IN Technical
Services Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1998), pp. 35-48.

Before moving to SIRSI's Unicorn system about 18 months ago we had a local
system called LIAS, but it was not capable of effectively handling complex
holdings statements. At some point in ancient local history (actually,
1992) PSU purchased the Innovacq Serials Control module of Triple-I to
handle serials holdings. It is this module that Melissa and I managed to
effectively use to handle holdings information for our entire 7.5-minute
topo collection. For Pennsylvania this is at the sheet level and includes
all editions and all copies of each edition held. For all other states we
have our holdings at the edition level.

Perhaps a little background reading, since you're using the same system for
basically the same purpose, might be helpful. Yep, we did encounter some
problems, and those are also outlined in the article. By now though I'm
positive that Triple-I may have enhanced the workings of the serials
control system enough to overcome most, if not all, of the problems we had
to hurdle.

Good luck on this and do keep all of us posted as to the outcome!

Paige

At 01:47 PM 8/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 10:07:26 -0700
>From: Brian Bach <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Seeking USGS Map Count
>
>Thanks to Wangyal for an instant answer to my question. The Excel database
>shows relative numbers of maps for each state. Excel-lent! The database is
>attached to Wangyal's previously posted message. Paige's suggestion for
>such a reference is thus already provided!
>
>And thanks to all who responded to my question regarding map counts for
>USGS 7.5 topos on a state by state basis.
>
>To clarify, what I needed to find out was which US states exceed 3000
>topos in number. We have embarked on our project of entering all our 7.5
>topos into Triple-I. Currently our limit of item attachments per record is
>3000. Naturally, TX exceeds the limit, but I was uncertain about CA & MT.
>AK is not a problem, as Linda Z's handy stats have shown.
>
>We are upgrading Triple-I to Millennium, which should have a 5000 record
>capacity, so by the time we reach the Lone Star state (admittedly, down
>the road a piece), perhaps this situation will be successfully resolved.
>
>Paige makes an excellent point as far as border quads are concerned. I'm
>discovering that in our collection, the solution is quite logical:
>whatever state has the majority of coverage on the given quad, that quad
>goes to that particular state's collection. Millport NW, AL-MS has only a
>quarter inch by two inches of MS territory showing, so, uh, I think it's
>no contest in that case. Certain quads come nearer to even percentages,
>but our depository collection is not lavish enough to provide for such
>duplication. There are a few discrepancies in what choices are made as far
>as what state 'gets' the topo; e.g. very occasionally the mini-state map
>(in the bottom margin, which shows quadrangle location) shows the primary
>state in question, while the first state listed after the topo quad title
>may be the border (or secondary or tertiary, etc.) state(s), while the
>primary state in question gets second billing! And vice-versa. Assuredly,
>these are knotty cartographic choice problems, !
>which are best regarded with parental tolerance.
>
>Even taking border quads into account, Wangyal's calculations are more
>than accurate enough to get a proper perspective.
>
>So, it's on to Millry North, AL and points further afield . . .
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>Brian P. Bach
>Maps Specialist
>Documents/Maps
>Central Washington University Library
>400 E. 8th Ave.
>Ellensburg, WA 98926-7548
>USA
>[log in to unmask]