----------------------------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