---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 08:50:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ken Grabach <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: indexing digital geographid data (was: NTIS and the rebellion)
    (fwd)

In reply to Charles's comments on search engines for geographical
information:

I have often wondered, as a cataloger using MARC format, why there are no
searches available using the EXISTING geographical and temporal
information every cataloger inserts into every record created.  In records
for cartographic materials (format e), we use field 52, based upon the LC
G schedule for maps, and field 043 using MARC codes for continent or
region and country.  For mongraphic materials (format m) field 043 is used
when applicable, too.  I am unaware of any current catalogs that search on
either of those fields.

Where maps specify such information, field 034, cartographic mathematical
data, allows not only for scale to be indicated, but longitudinal and
latitudinal coordinates.

Field 045, time period of content, is available, too, and I have seen that
one used for historical maps, that is, maps covering a period of time
earlier than the date of production of the map.  It can also be used with
maps produced in earlier times for the period they cover.  Further, it is
available for other materials than cartographic.

Again, we catalogers spend considerable time putting in this information,
and verifying it with map in hand when using existing records.  To no end,
because we (catalogers) are the only users of that information!  I don't
suggest that we suspend use, it's too valuable.  Instead I ask, why are we
not making it searchable?

If the information is searchable, these fields could be assigned where
applicable in other types of information. The NTIS documents were
cataloged using another standard than MARC, but based on some similar
principles, called COSATI (I cannot recall what that acronym stands for).
Geographic information could be coded in those records.

Web interface search engines, which I seem to have a professional allergy
to, are based not on encoded descriptions, but instead are from the text
of the item itself.  There are catalogers, including colleagues at my
institution, who are cataloging web sites that libraries have identified
in their web pages.  They become searchable in the same way our books,
government documents, journal titles, media materials and maps are. That,
it seems to me, is useful.  Again, the geographic and temporal information
available already could be used when applicable for these records, and
ultimately be searchable.

_________________________________________
Ken Grabach         <[log in to unmask]>
Documents and Maps Librarian
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, Ohio  45056  USA


On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Johnnie Sutherland wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:06:49 -0500
> From: Charles Hickman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: indexing digital geographid data (was: NTIS and the rebellion)
>
> >>> Posted to MAPS-L for
> >>> Doug Nebert <[log in to unmask]> 08/18 2:40 PM >>>
>
> > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:57:43 -0600
> > From: Bill Thoen <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: NTIS and the Rebellion...
> >
> > Actually, I suspect that continuing development of search engines
> > will do more to revolutionize how libraries index information
> > than the other way around.
> >
>
> I agree completely with Bill that unstructured, document-like
> information has a great promise for discovery through emerging
> search engines. The challenges for indexing digital geographic data
> however have not yet been met by existing search engines without
> some help. We are helping to overturn some of these problems
> with commercial vendors, but the following obstacles remain:
>
> Formalization of spatial and temporal tags. Sure, place names
> can be found in documents and metadata, but unless they are done
> with some intelligence or known classification system, the search
> and matching of results is very problematic yielding many possible
> matches that one must wade through. Fortunately FGDC metadata
> includes dates and bounding coordinates that can be easily
> parsed from the XML representation of the metadata into unambiguous
> locations. Good metadata collection and search tools also hide
> the management of these numeric coordinates behind place name pick
> lists or map-based selectors that derive coordinates on the back
> end.
>
> Management of large collections. Many of the richest and deepest
> collections of geospatial data products store their metadata in
> relational databases. With millions of entries it is not very
> smart to export and synchronize the entire collection with an
> XML or HTML form to be visited by search engines. In these cases
> the product series metadata might get exposed for search but the
> details that get the user to accessing a specific product are
> still hidden from view. I see great potential in combining search
> engines within every website that are threaded into any local
> data bases to provide rapid local discovery. I see indications
> that Microsoft and Oracle are heading this way, making the
> possibility of a targeted distributed search a real possibility.
> Site "centroids" or descriptive records end up getting exposed
> to crawlers and search engines. Searches then are passed only
> to site indexes that match a certain profile where current public
> content is searched. We are still a year or two away from this
> vision that can only work reliably with some search standards
> in place.  Perhaps the OpenGIS Consortium's Catalog Services
> specification, passed last week can help out here.
>
> Links between data and metadata.  I agree that the traditional
> external catalog model is outdated. In the digital world the
> data and the metadata should become one. Metadata are simply
> the properties returned from querying a data object. In the
> not too distant future when one places a spatial data object
> into the public database, it properties become the things
> against which searches are posed. Software uses them; nice
> user presentations of the metadata can be made from them. But
> again we are still far from having commercial search
> engines recognize existing spatial data structures let alone
> spatial data with embedded metadata.
>
> In the next year we will be revisiting the potential of the
> centralized and distributed elements of Clearinghouse to better
> achieve the vision of spatial data discovery and access. And
> we will be doing so with the leverage of emerging standards
> and commercial search technology. I hope to make the use of
> the Clearinghouse potentially a transparent one that your GIS
> software could just use programmatically to help get your job
> done. Other browseable interfaces will lead GIS-naive users
> from finding a map, past needing to interpret complex metadata,
> and will present them the picture that they are seeking in
> response to a problem. New solutions are looming on the horizon
> with open, interoperable web mapping interfaces from the OpenGIS
> Consortium with support from all the major (and some minor)
> GIS vendors. Big changes are afoot!
>
> Doug Nebert
> FGDC
>