----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
Whoa...lets step back a bit. My question has to do with the earlier decision
-making on WHAT collections are to be digitized first, and how is that decision
being made in collections around the country.
 
There is an interesting article in CDROM Professional, May 1995, which raises
some issues. That article is "Technology meets culture at the dawn of the
digital museum, CDROM Professional, May 1995, 106-111.
 
The focus is MUSEUM collections though, not libraries. But is there a difference
when it comes down to what making collections accessible beyond the walls of our
institutions?
 
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Digitizing Maps
Author:  Tom Neff <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
Date:    7/13/95 2:55 AM
 
 
There is probably no single method of digitization that will prove
sufficient for _all_ possible cartographic research purposes.  As has
been pointed out, line widths and other minute details which may
appear useless for one class of inquiry could be the vital center of
interest for another.  Rectilinear rasterization may obscure or skew
some characteristics of interest.  And we cannot predict what new
topics or concerns will arise in future decades (or centuries) -
research that might be frustrated by reductive assumptions we made
while digitizing the only copies of certain maps that those future
researchers will ever see.
 
I suggest, therefore, that important maps be scanned in as many
*different* ways as possible, and generally at the highest
resolutions and color depth remotely achievable with today's
technology, no matter how big the resulting file is.  The
cartographers of AD 2200 will not forgive us for losing information
because we want to fit more maps onto a single CD-ROM, for example.
A whole CD-ROM or optical disk is no more valuable than the original
map whose image it carries.
 
I also suggest that precise vector-based acquisition be pursued, as
opposed to just rasterization.  For some research purposes, this is
far superior and more efficient.
 
Finally, where practicable, I suggest that representative
micrographic digitization be performed in conjunction with scanning
of the whole.  This "spot" micrography stands the best chance of
affording future researchers a glimpse at the full range of detail
available to contemporary scholars in possession of the originals.
 
Tom Neff
 
--
Tom Neff :: [log in to unmask] :: <URL:http://www.panix.com/~tneff/>