The MARC standard allows for the description to capture all aspects of a
work that entails more than one named map on the same sheet.  The main
parts of description of the work are covered by various "200" or "2xx"
fields, the titles and statements of responsibility (245), added titles as
needed (246), edition statement (250) and cartographic mathematical
information (255).  The 255 information includes statement of scale,
projection statement, and coordinates.  This field is repeatable in cases
where there is more than one main map with different scales and
coordinates, and of course, projection statement when applicable.
Repeatable here means that more than one field can be used, each covering
one of the items included in the single published item.

There is another field that reiterates the scale and coordinates, with code
to indicate whether the scale is horizontal or verticle, and to give the
full set of east, west, north and south coordinates.  This field (034) is
also repeatable.  This field only covers numerically defined information,
and thus does not include projection information.

There is another set of fields, the so-called fixed fields, because each
uses a fixed number of characters in encoded form to indicate various
aspects of the publication.  This is usually one to four characters
depending on some variables for the type of information, and for the code
for a specific characteristic.  One of these fields covers a set of code
letters indicating a projection type, in a prescribed list.  It is this
latter field that led to my question.  The fixed field allows for a single
code for a single projection, and is not repeatable.

If could be possible to create another record to describe one of the maps.
However, the criteria for use of the MARC standards call for a single
record to describe a single publication.  Sometimes separate records have
been created for various reasons.  But the main drawback to doing so here
would be to give the impression to a potential user that different items
are being described when they are in fact on the same physical object (as
in the case of a short story anthology, or collection of essays, etc.).

Again, one place for indicating separate projections is available already,
in separate 255 fields (subfield 'b').  Another of the fixed fields covers
language of the publication.  This is not repeatable, either.  So the
convention, where more than one language is present, is to use the first
designated language.  Another field, 041, uses the same set of available
codes to indicate more than one language, or that it is multilingual.  This
is such a common occurrence, having more than one, or 'parallel' languages,
that I used this as the model to account for the two projections.  I used
the projection of the first named map to encode in the fixed field, and
covered both in the separate 255 fields.

I hope this makes sense to someone not familiar with the MARC standards.
By describing it this way, it helped me to consider exactly what I did, and
why.

Ken Grabach
Maps Librarian
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, OH  45056



On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:41 PM, David Hodnefield <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  Paige,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the information.  The case I was referring to is rare in
> Sanborn maps at least.  I wasn’t referring to an inset, but rather, to two
> totally separate publications printed on one sheet.
>
>
>
> I just figured if the MARC system doesn’t work for this situation, perhaps
> the problem could be solved by making two MARC entries, one for each
> map/projection.
>
>
>
> David
>  ------------------------------
>
>    [image: Description: cid:image001.png@01CD70F3.D84978F0]   *limiting
> liability with relevant environmental** research*
>
>
>
> *David Hodnefield, President*
>
> *Historical Information Gatherers*
>
>
>
> *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*
>
> 952-253-2004 ext 111
>
> www.historicalinfo.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Paige G. Andrew
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2015 1:25 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> What you describe with Sanborn maps (and is very common across many types
> of maps) is not rare at all, whether one is talking about a main map being
> "segment-ized" as was frequently done on individual Sanborn sheets or
> whether it is seeing one or more map insets (enlargements of a small area
> of the main map so the map reader can see more detail). That said, if one
> is interested in keeping track of an inset or a segment as an individual
> component it sounds like you've figured out a method for capturing this
> data that is satisfactory to your needs.
>
>
>
> Just so you know, the issue being discussed here IS rare -- describing two
> or more main maps that were created using different projections. Hence us
> map catalogers discussing options for handling this conundrum within the
> MARC standard, which as you can tell has its limits. We are very used to
> working with multiple main maps all of which were created using the same
> projection type.
>
>
>
> Paige
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"David Hodnefield" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To: *[log in to unmask]
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 7, 2015 10:29:50 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
>
>
>
> While I am not a librarian and have no experience in cataloging, I have
> encountered the problem of two maps in one with Sanborn Maps.  On rare
> occasion, they put two cities on one sheet.  The way I have chosen to
> handle it is by creating two entries in my database. Each entry refers to
> the same map sheet but has a unique record for that city.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>    [image: Description: cid:image001.png@01CD70F3.D84978F0]   *limiting
> liability with relevant environmental* *research*
>
>
>
> *David Hodnefield, President*
>
> *Historical Information Gatherers*
>
>
>
> *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*
>
> 952-253-2004 ext 111
>
> www.historicalinfo.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Ken Grabach
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:05 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Cataloging quesiton, fixed field
>
>
>
> It's an interesting suggestion, but I'm sort of where Paige is.  I've not
> used 006 for cartographic resources.  I've only ever used this field for
> electronic versions (like DVD) of cartographic resources.  And yes, it
> would be hard to tell one projection from another, which gets us back to
> the fixed field dilemma.
>
>
>
> Fortunately, I've only had this one instance I described.  I think
> applying the same method for the projection code as for language code in
> the fixed field makes the most sense.  Use the code for the first named.
> Multiple languages can be accounted for in the 041 and 546 fields.
> Multiple projections can be accounted for in the 255 fields, which is a
> repeatable field.
>
>
>
> But again, Rick, you propose something that if it recurs could be
> considered as another option.
>
>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Paige G. Andrew <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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 2nd 006 field which will
> include the projection code of the 2nd map, potentially solve this
> problem, or am I totally off base here?  Granted the 2nd 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ken Grabach
>
> Maps Librarian
>
> BEST Library, 219D
>
> Miami University Libraries
>
> Oxford, OH  45056  USA
>
>
>
> 513-529-1726
>
>
>



-- 
Ken Grabach
Maps Librarian
BEST Library, 219D
Miami University Libraries
Oxford, OH  45056  USA

513-529-1726