Rick,
In the context of looking forward at linked data possibilities, I have no qualms with adding projection data using the 006 field, though when thinking about the end result -- a user or patron's understanding of which projection is for which map -- that still has to be taken under consideration. It seems to me that "potentially useful" data (i.e., putting in 052 Geographic Area Codes, or 043's even though perhaps nobody has decided to put them to use in a machine-actionable manner) for future opportunities is better than not having the data to work with. Just my two cents' worth...
Paige
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Grapes" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 6:18:23 PM
Subject: Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
Hi all.
Paige, you’re exactly right. Adding more 006 fields won’t, at a glance, be helpful to the patron. But I was thinking more along the lines of future RDA applications. The linking and cross linking of all the different cataloging layers, authors, works, expressions, etc. Would it be helpful to add a 2 nd or 3 rd 006 field potentially making the extra projections searchable? Could some future computer system make use of them? Talked to our expert in RDA here in the library, and he basically said if you feel an extra 006 field could be helpful, there’s nothing in RDA against it. So the root question is, are we able to divine the future need for additional coding, its usefulness, and would it be worthwhile adding it today? I apologize for taking the question so far afield.
Thanks for your help.
Rick
From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Paige G. Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 1:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
Rick,
I haven't used the 006 field in a long time, so I had to go look up which types of data can appear in this field for cartographic resources, and you are correct that there is a position for projection code. Now...if one were to use your proposed technique I don't know if it would be helpful or not. In particular, how would one know that the code in the Proj: fixed field matched one of the maps and then the one in the 006 matched the other one? Ken?
Paige
From: "Rick Grapes" < [log in to unmask] >
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:05:32 PM
Subject: Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
Paige and everyone else,
I’ve been away for Christmas and so this question may have been answered already. That said, could the addition of a 2 nd 006 field which will include the projection code of the 2 nd map, potentially solve this problem, or am I totally off base here? Granted the 2 nd 006 won’t match the fixed fields, but some future computer system may be able to take advantage of the added coding, much like people now take advantage of extra 255 fields. Are there issues with inserting two 006’s that I’m not seeing?
Thanks,
Rick Grapes
BYU Map Collection
From: Maps-L: Discussion Forum for Maps, Air Photo, Map Librarianship, GIS, etc. [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of Paige G. Andrew
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
This sounds like a new situation I've never run into myself Ken. I don't think you have any choice but to follow your own suggestion because the Proj: fixed field only allows for one code. Naturally, make sure that the name of the projection appears in 255$b for each map, so at least our patrons will be able to know what was used when viewing a record. I think your suggestion works the best -- code for the first named map in the title proper.
Paige
From: "Ken Grabach" < [log in to unmask] >
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:20:29 AM
Subject: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
Interesting situation has come up, that I have never dealt with in several years of cataloging maps. Two maps on one sheet, both sides, with each having a different projection. Each is titled separately, so would the Fixed Field be coded for the first named title? And not concern myself in the Fixed Field for the other code?
The map in question is the new ITMB map of Ethiopia & Eritrea, both previously published separately. Ethiopia has Universal Transverse Mercator projection; Eritrea has Lambert Con formal Conic projection.
I've encountered many with separate scale and coordinate statements in 255 fields, reflected in separate 034 fields. But different projection statements is new for me.
My inclination is to code for the Ethiopia (first named) map in the Fixed Field. Any other insights are welcome.
--
Ken Grabach
Maps Librarian
BEST Library, 219D
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, OH 45056 USA
513-529-1726
|
