Rebecca. I do apologize for being
so late on responding to this email.
Yes, let's put coordinates into
authority records. Seems to me
there's already a discussion on
doing that work, within the ALA
Map & Geography Round Table.
If you would be willing to
put some of your very busy time
to writing a white paper on this,
I'm interested in working on it.
Mary
Quoting "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>:
> I've been following some of the discussion on this list but have been
> slow
> to respond. I'm not sure that I understand all the needs of the
> geospatial
> community, but do have some thoughts on some of the discussion.
>
> Thus far most of this discussion has been about adding coordinates
> to
> bibliographic records to be used for more effective searching of
> places. I
> think it would be more effective to add the coordinates to authority
> records instead (or at least as an alternative). The reason is that
> an
> authority record is intended to include metadata about the
> particular
> entity. So for a person, one could expect an authority record to tell
> you
> about that person, like where he/she is employed, when the person was
> born
> and died, alternate names. Likewise for a place that authority
> record
> could give information about where it is located-- it would be
> appropriate
> to include a field to contain coordinates. If over time those
> coordinates
> changed because the jurisdiction it covers has changed they could be
> qualified by date. That way there would be one authoritative source
> to
> look for this information. Of course up until now we haven't done
> that
> with geographic headings, but I would favor developing a proposal to
> add
> the information needed. I would also favor adapting one of the
> existing
> fields (034 or 255) rather than defining yet a new field to do what
> is
> needed-- and add them to the authority format.
>
> Of course for this approach to be effective it would require that
> systems
> be able to use it-- a closer interaction between authority and
> bibliographic records. And the lack of that is the reason why there
> is
> this desire to add everything to the bibliographic record. But it
> does
> require analyzing where the information rightfully belongs, perhaps
> in
> terms of a entity model like FRBR, where there is a distinction
> between
> entities and where to record such information. Then the goal would be
> to
> get the vendors to implement an effective means of using the data.
>
> I think this list is a good vehicle to discuss some of these issues.
> It
> would be nice if we could present a discussion paper at the
> Midwinter
> MARBI meetings to start getting them out on the table so that any
> necessary proposals for changes can be considered maybe at the
> annual
> meeting.
>
> See also below some specific comments on an earlier message.
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Joe Aufmuth wrote:
>
> > The Alexandria project is a prime example of an integer field which
> will
> > allow a variable range search. Where as a leading "+" sign and 0
> place
> > holder in MARC limits the records to character based searches.
> Therefore
> > additional programming would be required for any MARC catalog
> interface to
> > extract the integer values from the character set and then compare
> them
> > against a patron's request. It's not the most efficient method. I
> presume
> > at the time the change was made to accept some format of decimal
> degree
> > coordinates, a visual spatial catalog search engine was not
> envisioned.
>
> A change was made to the format not long ago to make the data
> variable
> length, because it seemed too limiting to use a fixed length number
> of
> characters in a format that was not widely used (the format that
> Colleen
> asked about, e.g. N0421510). So I assume from what you're saying that
> the
> "+" and "-" need to be extracted to use the data? I would say that
> when
> the change was made noone brought up this point-- we just didn't get
> enough feedback from experts on geospatial data.
>
> > While mapping international dateline spatial data is tricky,
> treating them
> > as a series of points is not a problem. If the bounding box column
> names
> > are well defined only 2 coordinate pairs are needed, I.E. Upper
> Left X,
> > Upper left Y , Lower Right X and Lower Right Y. By definition of a
> box any
> > system could read the UL and LR coordinates and calculate the
> remaining 2
> > corners. Or, the additional X,Y coordinates for LL and LR columns
> could be
> > included and calculated by a cataloging macro. If the points are
> treated as
> > a set of coordinates in a single field additional programming also
> would be
> > required to extract the integer values from the set.
> >
> > Has anyone seen the Geographic Code Indexing thread on the Maps-L
> listserv.
> > Perhaps we can tie in those discussions with ours? I am not a
> cataloger and
> > have a very basic question: what does the 052 field offer in terms
> of format
> > (integer vs. character), indexing, searching, and reporting?
> >
> > And one last larger question. What will come of our discussions?
> Where is
> > MARC headed in terms of compatibility with FGDC or other spatial
> metadata
> > standards? -- sorry if this is off the thread's topic, but it is
> another
> > major issue facing GIS Librarians and digital spatial data related
> to MARC
> > records. Will additional MARC fields for digital spatial metadata,
> be
> > created? Will existing field formats be changed from character
> based to
> > integer based to enhance searching? What is the long term vision
> for MARC
> > and spatial metadata? My focus is rather biased towards digital
> spatial
> > data indexes and metadata search engines for our patrons.
>
> When the Content Standard for Geospatial Metadata was first approved
> (I
> think it was 1994), a large proposal went to MARBI to add all
> elements
> contained in it so that MARC could carry such data (Proposal No.
> 94-17). I
> recall that someone commented that they never saw MARBI approve so
> many
> fields at once. We have had very little feedback on the use of any
> of
> those changes that were made. Without input from the geospatial
> community
> we can't improve the format for its use. Certainly there is a broad
> recognition that geospatial data is important in the present
> information
> environment and we want to accommodate it in MARC as well as
> possible. So
> some focused discussion on specific problems and solutions would be
> welcome.
>
> Rebecca
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
> ^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
> ^^ Library of Congress ^^
> ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> ^^ ^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> >
> > Sorry to ramble on
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > Joe Aufmuth
> > GIS coordinator
> > George A. Smathers Libraries
> > Government Documents
> > University of Florida
> > P.O. Box 117001
> > Gainesville, Florida 32611-7001
> > 352-273-0367
> > Fax: 352-392-3357
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Subject Coordinates Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> > Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:06 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [SUBCOOR] Question on form of coordinates
> >
> >
> > For the record, I thought I would mention that a few years ago we
> made
> > some changes to the MARC field that contains the structured form
> of
> > coordinates, field 034 (MARC also has a field for the human
> readable form,
> > field 255). Field 034 has separate data elements (subfields) for
> > westernmost, easternmost, northernmost and southernmost
> coordinates. We
> > changed it to allow for variable length values and to use either
> the form
> > Colleen asked about (e.g. N0421510) or decimal degree format (e.g.
> > +079.533265, etc.). At the time we made this change, we were told
> that
> > there was not a need to specify the format used, since the format
> is
> > easily recognized by the number of characters and the placement of
> the
> > decimal point.
> >
> > Rebecca
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> > ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> > ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
> > ^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
> > ^^ Library of Congress ^^
> > ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> > ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> > ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> > ^^ ^^
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Archie Warnock wrote:
> >
> > > Colleen R. Cahill wrote:
> > > > As a map cataloger, I primarily deal with coordinates in two
> forms:
> > > > human-readable geographic coodinates (i.e. North 42 degrees, 15
> minutes,
> > > > 10 seconds) and machine-readable decimal degrees (i.e.
> N0421510). For
> > the
> > > > proposed subject coodinates, a machine-readable form of
> coordinates is
> > > > needed and so I always think of decimal coordinates. This is
> form a
> > > > standard used much? Are there any other (better or worse) ways
> used to
> > > > present coordinates?
> > >
> > > Thanks for getting this started, Colleen.
> > >
> > > Decimal degress are, I think, to be preferred in almost all
> cases
> > > although there are certainly occasional needs for alternative
> coordinate
> > > reference systems. Decimal degrees are trivial for machines to
> parse,
> > > they sort sensibly and are even relatively easy for humans to
> read.
> > >
> > > Metadata standards, eg, the Z39.50 GEO Profile
> > > (http://www.blueangeltech.com/standards/GeoProfile/geo22.htm),
> the FGDC
> > > Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM -
> > > http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/csdgm/), various OGC documents
> > > (http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=1094,
> > > https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=6716), to
> the
> > > extent that they address spatial coordinates at all, require the
> use of
> > > decimal degrees.
> > >
> > > A bigger issue with geographic coordinates, it seems to me, is
> ensuring
> > > that the coordinates are treated together, not as individual
> bounding
> > > coordinates. That is, a bounding rectangle needs to be
> considered as a
> > > _set_ of 4 coordinates and handled together, rather than as 4
> > > independent points. Otherwise, footprints that cross the
> International
> > > Date Line become much harder to handle.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Archie
> > >
> > > -- Archie Warnock [log in to unmask]
> > > -- A/WWW Enterprises www.awcubed.com
> > > -- As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer.
> > >
> >
>
Mary Lynette Larsgaard
Assistant Head, Map and Imagery Laboratory
Fund Manager: Geography; Military Science
Co-Manager for Map and Imagery Laboratory Fund
Davidson Library
University of California
Santa Barbara CA 93106
805/893-4049
fax 805/893-8799
[log in to unmask]
