Hi all

When we implemented RDA in 2013 at the British Library, we decided to add lat/long to all records for cartographic materials as a matter of policy (in hopes that one day we'll have a resource discovery tool that can make use of them....).

As Angie points out, it's pretty easy (and fun) to determine lat/long for items that do not already include them by using Bounding Box.

After discussions with other UK map cataloguers, we asked LC to establish a code for Bounding Box in order to indicate where the lat/long came from if it wasn't on the map. Thus, we add a $2 subfield (source) with the code "bound" to the 034 field. That way other cataloguers know where the data came from.

Hope that helps.

April

April Carlucci
Quality Assurance Project Manager
Collection and Metadata Processing South
The British Library

(and also still the BL's "go-to" person on map cataloguing)
----Original message----
From : [log in to unmask]
Date : 14/10/2015 - 22:21 (GMTDT)
To : [log in to unmask]
Subject : Re: cataloging quesiton


Hey Rick,

I think adding coordinates is the same as adding a scale. If they're given, great. If they're not given, you can still work out the info and provide it in the metadata. Tools like http://boundingbox.klokantech.com/ make that pretty easy for coordinates. 

RDA rule 7.4.2.2 Longitude and Latitude says: 
Sources of Information
Take information on longitude and latitude from any source within the resource.
If information on longitude and latitude is not provided within the resource, take the information from any source.


My inclination for your 1 map, 2 map situation is to just add the second scale fields with a note indicating what's going on. I know we tend to overthink all the details but I'd just try to work with the record in hand and move on. Why clutter up OCLC with duplicate records when it's most likely an oversite by the original cataloger. Of course, that depends on the date and importance of the map, etc. 

I often put stuff like this aside until the next day and for some reason the solution always seems clearer with the second (third or fourth) pass.

Best of luck.

Angie


From: Maps-L: Map Librarians, etc. <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Rick Grapes <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MAPS-L] 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