-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: map cataloging on OCLC--statistics
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:35:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Angie Cope
Reply-To:
To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Chris,
I got the table to work using IE - yes, I'm a Firefox user.
Your table is so cool that it's blowing my mind. Hence, I'm still having trouble wrapping
my mind around it. So, the numbers - in the Keyword column - represent an accumulated total?
Subtracting 2005 from 2006 would give you a total number cataloged/entered into OCLC for 2006?
And, am I correct in thinking that one would need to conduct this type of a search each year?
Or is there a way to go and look at everything that was cataloged in a given year
(sort of retrospectively) say by the date the record was entered?
One more thing - are you doing your search in WorldCat or Connexion?
Thanks for sharing Chris! This is really awesome!
Angie
AGS Library
UW Milwaukee Libraries
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: map cataloging on OCLC--statistics
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:35:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Winters <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Hmmm--this is embarrassing. The table works for me on
a PC with IE at work and on a Mac with Safari at home, so
I'm not sure what's happening. Could there be a browser
setting that needs to be changed? Anyone have any idea? I
just simplified the already pretty simple html. Try it
again ... ?
I regret I didn't mention one more factor that affects the
count of holdings. Libraries that have added "holdings" for
electronic resources they don't actually have are
overrepresented! But you all know that.
Sorry the table has been hard to read.
Chris
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:59:36 -0500
>From: Maps-L <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: map cataloging on OCLC--statistics
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>(I too could not see the left hand column of the table -
Angie)
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: map cataloging on OCLC--statistics
>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:32:10 -0400
>From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Maps, Air Photo & Geospatial Systems Forum <MAPS-
[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>Chris,
>
>I read your note in great interest, "counting" maps for a
collection has
>to be one of the more difficult things in the library world
to do! You
>list many factors that will skew the picture one way or the
other,
>thanks for being as clear about that as possible.
Unfortunately, when I
>clicked to open your report I am unable to see the lefthand-
side columns
>at all, there's no scrollbar to move from left to right.
This may very
>well be a function of my own computer and not your problem
at all, but
>just wanted to let you know and see if anyone else is
having the same
>problem? I believe I am missing a list of names of
institutions and
>figures for 2001 and partly from 2002. Thanks....
>
>Paige
>
>At 10:18 AM 7/17/2007, you wrote:
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: map cataloging on OCLC--statistics
>> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:10:44 -0500 (CDT)
>> From: Christopher Winters <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> In July of 2001, when I was preparing my annual report,
>> I decided to see how the University of Chicago was doing
>> in getting map cataloging records to OCLC in comparison to
>> other institutions. I did not know about 'dt="map,"' so I
>> just did keyword searches for "maps," "charts,"
or "views,"
>> limiting by format and institution. Since the results made
>> us look good, I naturally included the table in my annual
>> report. I've repeated similar searches in every July
>> since, adding a few institutions, and switching in 2005
>> to 'dt="map"' (which, unlike those keyword searches, picks
>> up records with no subject headings, foreign-language
>> subject headings, or subject headings like "remote-sensing
>> images"). I've been persuaded somewhat against my better
>> judgment to share the results. Click on
>>
>> http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/su/maps/TABLE_9.html
>>
>> Do read the footnote, and please remember:
>>
>> [1] This started as an exercise for an annual report.
>> Exercise appropriate cynicism.
>>
>> [2] It is _only_ a measure of libraries' success in
>> getting records to OCLC. Thus,
>>
>> [a] The many libraries that have had trouble getting
>> records to OCLC are underrepresented. The University
>> of Chicago, for example, has an online catalog that
>> at one time or another was producing 007 and 008 fields
>> and/or degree signs that could not be interpreted by OCLC,
>> hence a large number (maybe 2000) of our records were
>> never noted by OCLC. I know other libraries have had
>> even more trouble.
>>
>> [b] Libraries that have mostly reported to RLIN are
>> excluded. When and if the RLIN records now on OCLC
>> acquire holdings information, the numbers will be
>> very different.
>>
>> [c] How many records a library reports to OCLC is
>> in part a function of how it treats sets. The U of C,
>> for example, never analyzes sets of topographic maps,
>> but we try to analyze monographic series. Libraries that
do
>> make records for individual top(o) sheets will in effect
be
>> overrepresented (aren't there supposed to be ca. 100,000
>> separate USGS topos, counting all editions?). Libraries
>> that do not make separate records for monographic series
>> will be underrepresented (something like 5000 of the
>> U of C's records are for USGS MF, I, and GQ series
titles).
>>
>> [3] I hope folks at smaller libraries will forgive
>> my big-library chauvinism. If I've left out any
>> major non-RLIN library that has done a large amount
>> of map cataloging, sorry, and please let me know.
>>
>> [4] The table probably needs dozens of footnotes. I
>> know some of the large one-year jumps are due to recon
>> or other special projects; perhaps all these figures
>> should have explanations. The U of C's substantial
>> productivity considering that we are a collection with a
>> staff of FTE 1.5 is due in part to the fact that for many
>> years after our old homegrown catalog could (finally) deal
>> with map-format records, our cataloging department would
>> only let Map Collection staff "finish" matching LC
records.
>> Eventually, restrictions on what we were allowed to do
>> were lifted, and we eventually upgraded these records.
>> It's a lot easier to upgrade an existing record than
>> to do original cataloging or even to download a matching
>> record. I suspect other libraries have similar stories
that
>> explain what look like anomalies.
>>
>> [5] I don't know what to do about the fact that atlases
>> get picked up in this search. Any ideas? The fact that
>> the word "atlas" is used in most western European and
>> Slavic languages as well as in Arabic (big exception:
>> Italian atlante) does allow one to do some exclusion,
>> as does the fact that "Atlases" can be a subject heading,
>> but plenty of atlases aren't called that and just have
>> "651 0 Place name--Maps" subject headings. Also, the U
>> of C treats some unbound "atlases" as sheet maps, as, I'm
>> sure, other libraries do, so the distinction isn't always
>> clear.
>>
>> Hope you find this material interesting. Please don't
>> hesitate to let me (or everyone else) know about
>> mistakes. I realize that this sort of thing is
>> potentially a bit sensitive, and I hope it was okay
>> to share it.
>>
>> Chris Winters
>> Bibliographer for Anthropology, Geography, and Maps
>> University of Chicago Library
|
