Date:         Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:35:16 -0700
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Subject Coordinates Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mary Larsgaard <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: UCSB Map & Imagery Lab, Library
Subject:      Re: coordinates entry in catalog records
Comments: To: Subject Coordinates Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Dean, I'm so glad to hear I'm not the only
one routinely inputting coordinates on every
record (when it's planet Earth - MARC21
isn't set up to specify what planetary body
the coords are for; Earth is assumed but
unfortunately not specified).

just a few comments at **

Dean C Rogers wrote:

>I like what Jimmie says below.  I put coordinates into map records every 
>working day.  The new Google Earth product is the best aid I have 
>discovered so far, to show extent of coverage when the 4 areal extremes 
>are vague or nonexistent. It even shows my car parked in front of my 
>house, if I zoom in!
>
>There are several coordinate problems with the records we are creating 
>these days:
>1. We need to extend mandatory geographic data in bib records to non-map 
>items because many non-map non-fiction resources have place orientation 
>that could be invaluable to a patron searching electronically;
>  
>
**yes indeedy. I remember a couple years back, a friend
of mine who was cataloging photographs of portions of a city
was going to enter coordinates into each record, unwisely mentioned
that to someone at one of the utilities, who told her no-no,
can't enter coordinates for non-cart.mtls.
one experiment we'd like to do here at UCSB
is download all of the non-cartmtl records in the library's
online catalog, pull out all the ones that have geographic-area
subject headings (which MARC21 makes very do-able),
and then add coordinates to each record (that's the
tricky part), and load records into Alexandria Digital
Library catalog.
http://webclient.alexandria.ucsb.edu

>2. More and more resources are neither map nor non-map!  They are 
>"georeferenced" (often electronic) documents that may contain a simplified 
>map for general orientation, but also contain, as a main feature, a 
>multilayered GIS database with extensive metadata to explain that 
>database, text, previous editions, author biographies, related hot keys, 
>music, illustrations, and just about any other thing an author might dream 
>up to put in.
>  
>
**right.

>3. We do not value that proper coordinates are clean, hard data that yield 
>very good hits: You are either within a boundary or not, and this lends 
>itself to very  effective binary manipulation.
>  
>
**the problem being that if the given area is not
a rectangle (or more correctly a trapezoid, given how
lines of longitude operate), then one has to input
vertices of a non-bounding-box polygon, and
that really is time-consuming. also, it's tough to
get software that can search non-bounding-box polygons.

>4. Once you have seen Google Earth, you will realize that patrons will 
>soon expect to be able to draw a border on a region and ask for anything 
>on any topic within that area.  We MUST have the clean, hard coordinates 
>in the catalog records to support this functionality.
>5. Saay, shouldn't catalogers have this kind of point-and-click automation 
>for the input of record coordinates? As it is now, many non-map catalogers 
>run from   coordinates as geekcraft.  If we had a smart and easy aid (like 
>Google Earth) built in, as part of our cataloging software, it would make 
>geospatializing records much easier.
>  
>
**yes!! the whole task would be so much less time-consuming
and more accurate.

>6. I spend waay too much time duplicating projection (in Fixed Field and 
>255 field) and coordinates (in 034 and 255 fields) into bib records.  If a 
>cataloger enters the projection, degrees, minutes, and seconds once in a 
>record, why can't the automated cataloging program transfer them wherever 
>else they may be needed?
>  
>
**LCG&M has software where the coordinates are
entered by a human being only once and then the
software enters them the 2d time. if i remember correctly,
the software is available on the MARC21 website.

>7. I should, but do not know, the origin of degrees, minutes, and seconds. 
> From the time of Portugese Prince Henry, the Navigator? Or perhaps 
>earlier, from the Medieval period. The wierd non-decimal scheme of 
>degrees, minutes, and seconds was devised in an era when so much 
>mathematical work was done in the head (navigating on a stormy sea) with 
>shortcuts we have, for the most part, lost today. To me, decimalizing a 
>degree or minute is a perversion of this ancient system. (I should tell 
>this to the scientists at my agency).  If a finer increment than a second 
>is needed, I have no problem with dividing a second by 10.  Computers 
>today can convert quickly back and forth between the decimal and degree 
>(or any other) system.  It is at the human level where confusion arises.
>8. The next geospatial horizon is mainstreaming our excellent Global 
>Positioning System, which also indicates elevation.  I would like to see 
>online cataloging interface easily with the Global Positioning System.
>
>Our patrons deserve the best.
>
>  
>
**which is why they get us as catalogers:-)

Mary

Mary Lynette Larsgaard

Assistant Head, Map and Imagery Laboratory

Fund Manager: Geography

Co-Manager for Map and Imagery Laboratory Fund

Davidson Library

University of California

Santa Barbara CA 93106-9010

USA

805/893-4049

fax 805/893-8799

[log in to unmask]


>Thank you.
>
>Dean Rogers
>Map Cataloger
>U.S. Geological Survey Library
>Reston, Va. 20192
>
>
>
>
>
>Jimmie Lundgren <[log in to unmask]> 
>Sent by: Subject Coordinates Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>08/17/2005 02:57 PM
>Please respond to
>Subject Coordinates Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>To
>[log in to unmask]
>cc
>
>Subject
>Re: Question on form of coordinates
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Colleen is probably composing a more complete response, but here is a 
>short
>version of what I understand we are hoping to accomplish.
>
>1. Determine a way of expressing coordinates that will work well both in
>terms of interoperability with geospatial databases and usability by 
>catalog
>librarians.
>
>2. Propose a new field in MARC bibliographic records (standard coding 
>system
>for catalog records) for all formats of materials (not just cartographic) 
>to
>allow subject searching via geographic coordinates. This is very different
>from the currently-used 034 and 255 fields which are only used for
>cartographic materials and record the coverage of the particular
>cartographic item being described.
>
>3. Develop a standard list/database of geographic coordinates associated
>with places, hopefully through compilation from other reliable sources. 
>This
>will enable catalogers to copy and paste correct coordinates from the list
>into the new field on the bibliographic record.
>
>4. Propose a new field in MARC authority records for places for inclusion 
>of
>the geographic coordinates formatted for searching and interoperability
>also. (I have drafted a discussion paper on this topic during the past 
>year
>with some of my colleagues here and with input from MAGERT, and hope to
>expand, strengthen and submit sometime soon. One of my difficulties in
>developing this discussion paper has been choosing the best way of
>expressing coordinates that will be both searchable and easy for 
>librarians
>to record, so I am eagerly reading messages from each of you that help to
>shed light on this aspect. Please send more.)
>
>I am very excited about this because I believe it will ultimately lead to
>greatly improved access to all kinds of information about places for
>researchers. I am so grateful to Colleen for initiating this project, and 
>to
>each of you for your contributions!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jimmie Lundgren
>Cataloging & Metadata Dept.
>George A. Smathers Libraries
>University of Florida
>Gainesville, FL 32611
>352-392-0351
>  
>