Hi:
I'm also away from my office, right now, but I'd like you to consider that
the field 034 in MARC21 recites "Contains cartographic mathematical data,
including scale, projection, and/or coordinates in coded form. For digital
items, the coordinates can represent a bounding rectangle, the outline of
the area covered and/or the outline of an interior area not covered. For
celestial charts, it may also contain zone, declination data, and/or right
ascension data, and/or equinox. There should be an 034 field corresponding
to each 255 field in a record."
So, it is critically important to know how a cataloger derived the 034/255
fields in order to proceed with the georeferencing of the relative digital
data.
For some maps, we have geographic coordinate in decimal degrees or DD with
respect to Greenwich (digitally, it is what computers/developer like it),
for others they are in sessagesimal degrees.
Furthermore, do we want to take at face value a bounding box determination,
that probably consider the Earth as a spheroid while our map may adopt a
specific set of projections, datums and declinations?
For example, I deal a lot with historical maps of Africa (but also with
modern maps and data): the map authors have through the centuries
experimented with all types of projections, coordinates and datums. They
all have different parameters and errors.
I think that if we tell catalogers --with a policy -- to apply a "fit all"
bounding box, we allow them to introduce additional (geodetic) errors that
may be propagated.
My suggestion is to ask catalogers to write in the 034/255 fields MARC 21,
the geographic coordinates at the present day in DD (so with respect to
the Greenwich Meridian, specifying it--since many maps refers to other
system of reference-- to make easier the georeferencing), but also to
specify --where possible -- the type of projection and other geodetic
parameters (such as datum, declination, scale and others) that were used by
the author(s).
If you want to make easier for them to estimate the geographic coordinates
(DD with respect to Greenwich): calculate them with Google Earth as
geographic points (it is just one example, I'm sure that there are many
more). Somewhere, they/you need to write explicitly that Google Earth uses
a reference system that considers the Earth a spheroid with WGS84 datum. To
introduce also a polygon (the bounding box) means to me that somewhere a
cataloger must specify which projection and conversion she/he has adopted
in addition of all the original parameters. Very prone to errors and
better to leave the "judgement call" to whoever uses those digital data, in
my opinion
I hope this helps. Have a good work.
Cheers,
Lucia
Lucia Lovison-Golob, Ph.D.
Geospatial Director and Librarian
Afriterra Foundation
AIP-GEO Capacity Building Leader
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Paige G. Andrew <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ifigenia,
>
> I'm pleased to see that the academic libraries in Greece agree on the need
> to include coordinates in records created (will you be adding to existing
> records as well?), this data is so key in terms of not only sharing where
> something is in a very specific manner but as we work more and more with
> spatially-based interfaces in our work and general life it is what drives
> functionality of those kinds of online interfaces, such as finding
> information in OpenGeoportal. Here in the U.S. the standards for including
> the portions of both the 255 and 034 fields relating specifically to
> geographic coordinates have long been considered "optional" and yet I have
> been a proponent of taking the time to include them in our records even
> when not present on the map, which of course is so very easy to do now with
> the Klokan Bounding Box Tool (and thus within the past year or so the
> source term found in $2 to identify this tool, "bound", was established
> because of it). Of course, scale data also appears in both of these fields,
> in different forms, and projection information goes into the 255 $b, but
> you are asking specifically about coordinate data in relation to making
> this a mandatory application.
>
> Susan shared with you the location of the MARC standard, and within that
> anyone can go and look up both of these fields to see what goes into them,
> whether or not they are required for full level cataloging, if they are
> repeatable (both of them are), their definitions, etc. I just wanted to add
> a couple more things based on your message. First, the Klokan tool is free,
> which is why it has been so quickly and widely adopted for use by
> catalogers here, along with the fact that it is intuitive and the resulting
> coordinate data can be set up in one of multiple display outputs plus you
> can just copy and paste the results into the two fields (034 and 255). I
> would suggest in your proposal that you stress the importance of sharing
> coordinate data beyond its foremost use of identifying a specific location
> on the Earth's surface for the cartographic resource being described and by
> using Marcy's article and some of what I said above also share how this
> particular type of data extends the usefulness of the bibliographic record
> well beyond the boundaries of the library world. The pushback from some
> catalogers has always been "it takes too much time to input" but the Klokan
> tool, once one is familiar with how to use it, really puts that argument to
> rest; the other pushback is simply individuals not understanding what a set
> of geographic coordinates is and represents. Without appreciating the
> usefulness of the data beyond describing a location linked to a specific
> map or similar in someone's collection one is likely not going to be moved
> to agree to include coordinates data in all of their work.
>
> Finally, as you mentioned, it is really important to indicate to other
> catalogers the resource that one has used to obtain coordinates for the
> description, so requiring "$2 bound" within the record in the 034 field for
> each time that one goes to the Klokan tool is essential. By extension, one
> could also use $2 gnis or $2 geonet [or any other established code for a
> standardized source of this kind of information] but I don't see these used
> in the bibliographic record -- however, they are always to be included if
> one is creating an authority record for a place in the Library of Congress
> Name Authority File (LCNAF). I am personally guilty of forgetting to
> include "$2 bound" in my work from time to time but am now pretty
> habituated to doing so. So, when I see a bibliographic record in OCLC that
> includes coordinates in the 034 field but lacks a $2 source code my
> assumption is that either (a) the coordinates shown were taken directly
> from the map itself, or (b) the coordinates shown were derived from an
> atlas or other map showing the same place that has the coordinates. That's
> a pretty broad assumption however.
>
> Finally, one of the big advantages to all of the academic libraries in
> Greece switching to one library system and the MARC21 standard is that
> documentation for MARC is easy to find and use, it is robust, and there has
> always been a proactive movement to continuously keep it as up-to-date as
> possible. I wish everyone who is part of this transition the best of luck
> and hope that things go smoothly!
>
> Paige
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ ΒΑΡΔΑΚΩΣΤΑ" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent: *Thursday, October 22, 2015 4:01:04 AM
> *Subject: *Re: 034-255-cataloguing rules
>
> Dear all,
>
> The conservation for the use of 034 and 255 was rather useful for me and I
> thank you for that.
>
> For your knowledge, 26 academic libraries in Greece are going to migrate
> from various library systems that sustained so far (e.g.HORIZON, ALEPH,
> ADVANCE etc) and UNIMARC, to Sierra and MARC 21.
>
> As I’m in the policy committee for framing common rules in cataloguing
> and took over the MARC 21 for maps (translation and guidance in use for the
> 26 libraries to follow), and in the name of interoperability and the
> common workflow in map cataloguing that all librarians must have and for
> the easy retrieval of sources as well, I intend to propose the use of 034
> as in the current conversation was mentioned. What I mean is :
>
> · to propose all maps have coordinates, no matter if they
> mentioned in the map,
>
> · the use of the http://boundingbox.klokantech.com/ (it is free
> of charge as I can see, right?) for detecting coordinates in the case they
> are not mentioned in the map.
>
> · The use of 034 $2 subfield (source) with the code "bound" as
> April mentioned.
>
>
>
> As I searched I couldn’t find the MARC 21 document from LC, in which the
> addition of 034 can be seen.
>
> Is it familiar to any of you? It would be nice to have the formal document
> which will proof what I stand for (besides the very interesting and useful
> article of Marcey Bidney for the use of coordinates in library’s catalogue).
>
>
>
> Do you have any other idea/suggestion that I have to take in account and
> include in my proposals for action in cataloguing?
>
>
>
> I really thank you very much and I wait for your answers for proceed
> accordingly.
>
>
>
> Ifigenia Vardakosta
>
> Head Librarian
>
> Library & Information Centre
>
> Harokopio University
>
> Kallithea-Athens
>
> Greece
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> (E 23°42'24"--E 23°42'34"/N 37°57'44"--N 37°57'36")
>
>
>
> PhD Candidate
>
> Ionian University
>
> Corfu-Greece
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Academia: http://hua.academia.edu/IfigeniaVardakosta
>
> ResearchGate: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ifigenia_Vardakosta
>
> Linked in: https://gr.linkedin.com/pub/ifigenia-vardakosta/38/180/656
>
> Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/IfiVar
>
>
>
> *From:* Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Ratliff, Louise
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:10 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [Spam?] Re: cataloging quesiton
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paige, I didn’t think that “Scale varies” was correct, and I’m
> glad you confirmed that it is not.
>
>
>
> Another thing that just came to my mind is that, if you describe this as
> one map, make sure that the physical measurement is for the entire map. In
> other words, if the map is shown horizontally on each side of the sheet,
> add up the vertical measurements (heights) of the neat lines or the sheet
> from both sides of the sheet.
>
>
>
> Cartographic Materials 5D1. Maps, plans, etc. says in part:
>
>
>
> If a map, etc., is on one or more sheets in two or more segments designed
> to fit together to form one map, etc., give the dimensions of the complete
> map, etc., followed by the dimensions of the sheet(s)
> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=cartmatsSheet&hash=Sheet&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>.
> Separate the dimensions by a comma and precede the sheet dimension with on
> unless the number of sheets is given in the extent of the item. ….
>
> If it is difficult to determine the points for measuring the height and
> width of a complete map, etc., that is in segments, or if it is difficult
> to assemble the map, etc., for measuring, give only the height and width of
> the sheet(s)
> <http://desktop.loc.gov/search?view=document&doc_action=setdoc&doc_keytype=foliodestination&doc_key=cartmatsSheet&hash=Sheet&fq=myresources%7Ctrue>
> specified as such.
>
> (RDA 3.5.2.2 and 3.5.2.4 give the same instructions.)
>
>
>
> Thanks for your question. It’s a good opportunity for me to review the
> rules!
>
>
>
> Louise
>
>
>
> *From:* Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Paige G. Andrew
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:11 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: cataloging quesiton
>
>
>
> Okay, even though my vacation is not quite over I've got to chip in here
> after reading several responses/comments, many of which are on target,
> though Louise's suggestion to use "Scale varies" is not accurate as that
> supplied phrase is only to be used on a single map in which the scale
> changes from the center of the map going out to the periphery AND a
> specific range of scales is not given on the map, for instance "Scale
> 1:14,000 to 1:24,000."
>
>
>
> Where to start? Angie's and Susan's replies are on target. I can only
> surmise that at the time the record was created there was no Klokan
> Bounding Box tool and its optional to provide coordinates in the record
> unless they are on the map (LC practice) or unless you are a member of
> BIBCO for the maps format, in which it is required. The other way to obtain
> coordinates is to compare with a map (by itself or one in an atlas) that
> has coordinates and pull from that source. So, using the Bounding Box tool
> or comparing with another map of the same place both fall under the RDA
> instruction that Angie supplied.
>
>
>
> This sounds like a "1 map : |b both sides, color" situation to me, and for
> whatever reason the creator chose to show one half of it at a larger scale
> to make the details more visible. Using the title as a guide, if it
> indicates this is a map of one place, and also seeing that the map itself
> is of one geographic area that starts on one side of the sheet and finishes
> on the other side, then I would give 2 255s and 2 034s, one for each scale
> (though the coordinates would only need to be given once because they cover
> the entire geographic area concerned). Then, also denote through a 500 note
> what is going on, such as:
>
>
>
> 500 North half at a scale of approximately 1:XX,XX, south half at a scale
> of approximately 1:XX,XXX.
>
>
>
> or alternately if each half has its own title you can substitute it for
> "north" and "south" (or "east" and "west" if that is the case).
>
>
>
> As was mentioned by someone, if you are certain that the copy is a match
> the download it and add/subtract as you wish locally, but do not create a
> new master record and clutter up OCLC (and if you are not certain about
> whether its a match or not go to oclc's "When to create a new record" in
> the Bib. Input Standard and review what it says for the fields in dispute)
>
>
>
> Back to vacation...(actually, we're off the ship and on our way home from
> Baltimore as I type this)
>
>
>
> Paige
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Angie Cope" <[log in to unmask]>
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]
> *Sent: *Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:52:39 AM
> *Subject: *Re: cataloging quesiton
>
>
>
> Regarding scales differ versus scale varies ...
>
>
>
> RDA 7.25.1.4 "If the scale within one image, map, etc., varies and the
> largest and smallest values are known, record both scales separated by a
> hyphen. If the values are not known, record *Scale varies."*
>
>
>
>
>
> *"If the resource consists of more than one image, map, etc., and the main
> images, maps, etc., are of more than one scale, record **Scales* *differ*
> *."*
>
>
>
>
>
> Paige talks about this on pages 62-63 in his new RDA book.
>
>
>
> Angie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf
> of Ratliff, Louise <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2015 5:19 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [MAPS-L] cataloging quesiton
>
>
>
> Hi Rick,
>
>
>
> I’ll offer some opinions.
>
>
>
> I would say that these are 2 maps because 1) they are on opposite sides of
> the sheet and 2) they have different scales. The panel title covers them
> both. Then you can have a contents note and supply titles for each of the
> 2 sides, enclosed in brackets to indicate they do not appear on the maps.
> And also record the two scales, of course. A question though, is there some
> kind of marking to indicate that one is an extension of the other? If so,
> maybe my next option would work.
>
>
>
> There is another option that I probably would not use, which is to say in
> the 255 “Scale varies.” This is usually applied to maps such as bird’s-eye
> views where there is perspective, so that the foreground is in a larger
> scale than the background. I’ve never used this to describe your case,
> though.
>
>
>
> Second, regarding coordinates, I often provide coordinates that are not
> marked on the map itself. I use the Klokan Bounding Box tool to put a box
> around my region, and then read the coordinates. This is a reasonably
> accurate way of providing coordinates that might be useful to the user. So
> no, there is not a requirement that the coordinates in the bib record
> appear directly on the map. http://boundingbox.klokantech.com/
>
> Bounding Box Tool: Metadata Enrichment for Catalogue ...
>
> Bounding Box Tool for Metadata Enrichment Visual selection of the latitude
> / longitude coordinates for geotagging of a bibliographic record for
> cartographic documents
>
> Read more... <http://boundingbox.klokantech.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bottom line, though, is that you may use cataloger’s judgement in how you
> choose to describe your map. It seems that the bib record you found needs
> to be modified according to the option you choose. Either change the
> extent in the 300 field, or change the scale note.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
>
> Louise
>
>
>
> P.S. Paige is on vacation this week, and is not connected to the
> internet. Good for him!
>
>
>
> *From:* Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Rick Grapes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:16 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* cataloging quesiton
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’ve got a cataloging question.
>
>
>
> I’ve found some copy cataloging that I plan on changing locally. This is
> an exact record, so I’m not altering something similar. The record
> describes 1 map both sides, and includes one 034 and one 255 field. But
> further examination shows that the “1 map both sides” has 2 different
> scales. Not even close. Thus I’d prefer to describe these as 2 maps both
> sides etc. even though the 2 are north south extentions of each other, they
> both have the same titles within the neat line, as well as the same cover
> title. Is my thinking correct, to describe these as 2 maps both sides,
> solely because of the differing scales, and in spite of the other
> similarities? That’s my 1st question.
>
> Secondly, the original record included the latitude longitude coordinates
> in the 034 and 255, but there is no Latitude longitude info. on the map
> anywhere. Zero, nichts, nada. I have no idea where these coordinates came
> from, and without doing the math myself, have no idea of its accuracy.
> Should I do the math and extrapolate the latitude longitude for both sides
> myself, inserting the additional fields? Is it safe to distrust the
> original cataloging to a certain degree because of the different scales,
> and thus assume the latitude longitude may be incorrect also? What is the
> general consensus about catalogers inserting latitude longitude when the
> item itself does not show such data at all?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Grapes
>
> BYU Map Collection
>
>
>
>
|
