----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Virginia Hetrick wrote that "technology is not making people more productive."
I seriously doubt that the authors of the MARC cataloging format had increased
personal productivity in mind when they unveiled their creation.  On the
contrary, because of the overwhelming advantage of a universally shared corpus
of machine-readable catalog copy, it could be assumed that the individual who
takes on the rather daunting task of preparing THE record of an individual map
for an international database (and whose reputation is thus internationally on
the line), would be inclined, and for that matter, required, to take whatever
time is needed to produce correct records.  I will not enumerate the
advantages of automated systems here, but everytime I am spared the necessity
of consulting a card file, be it a catalog, an authority file or a holdings
list I am reminded of what great times we live in (8-).  The bibliographical
entree to our collections is becoming increasingly transparent.
 
As for outsourcing, we in the AGS Collection tried out such a service last
summer.  It was not for maps, but rather, rare books--a pilot project of a
couple hundred titles.  To say the least, the results were not entirely
satisfactory, but the experience did provide us with valuable insights into
things we never could have considered beforehand.  Even though it was rare
books and not maps that we were dealing with, I believe that the situations
would be similar (I've always said that if someone masters map cataloging they
can probably catalog anything).  To summarize the problems: 1) The books
couldn't leave the premises.  This relates to maps also.  It thus becomes a
question of how you catalog something that you don't have in hand.  Surrogates
must be produced.  With books, photocopies of title pages, etc., could be
supplied.  Maps don't have title pages.  Relevant catalog information can come
from anywhere on the map.  Do we photocopy the entire map and send it to the
cataloger? (What if the original item is also a photocopy?)  At any rate,
someone must spend a great deal of time providing the cataloger with raw
information.  If the cataloger doesn't have the document in hand, many
questions arise--questions which can only be answered by a knowledgeable
member of your professional staff.  Many painful hours will be spent on the
phone (THIS is not hyperbole).  2) The catloger, who isn't necessarily
knowledgeable or experienced, is adding records to OCLC under YOUR name.  For
us, quality control was exasperating and relentless.  The errors were legion,
and OUR time was spent making the corrections.  3) The cataloger doesn't have
the resources at hand that you do to solve cataloging problems--they don't
have NUC, LOCIS, Tooley's Dictionary of Map Makers, or even your catalog and
certainly not your collection.
 
It seems to me, that an increasingly large number of cartographic records are
becoming available on OCLC through the efforts of LC and the many
participating member institutions.  The amount of original cataloging required
of a map cataloging department (at least to keep up with current acquisitions)
will necessarily become less and less--in other words, I believe that we are
beginning to reap the benefits of this large-scale cooperative cataloging
venture.  This is, however, no time to hire mercenaries in our crusade to
conquer Cartobibliographia.  The stakes are too high.  I believe that the
geographic sciences will increasingly be called to clairfy, define and even
solve an array of pressing global problems, and that maps, conventional or
digital will increasingly be rediscovered as the wonderful tools that WE all
know them to be.  This rediscovery, however, must be facilitated through an
international bibliograhic network of the highest quality, which I feel will
never be the product of outsourcing.
 
Chris Baruth
AGS Collection