MAGIRT/ALCTS CaMMS Cartographic Resources Cataloging Interest Group
ALA Annual, Anaheim CA
Sunday, June 24, 2012
8:00-9:45 am
Hyatt Royal Ballroom A
Reported by: Louise Ratliff, Chair
About 25 people attended this interest group meeting.
The group discussed issues relating to RDA, Library of Congress Form/Genre terms, and other related topics.
First, Tammy Wong (Library of Congress) brought up some questions about cartographic materials as "works." In a follow-up email to me she restated her concerns:
1. I was cataloging the map of "Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin" by US Forest Service. I started examining coordinates, a work attribute. When I compare the map with several items in the database (same preferred title and same creator, different year and different scale), I found out that the coordinates given in the records are not exactly the same, and some records do not even have coordinates. I think the reason is the fact that we do not establish coordinates by extrapolation, we only transcribe the last coordinates printed closest to the four edges of the map. But of course, the maps overlap approximately 95% of the geographic coverage. Therefore, I assume that it is just another expression of the same work. I think the issue is not knowing if something was the same work or not without pulling other maps already cataloged in the database, we just have to get a feel for this and may set up a default decision for cases like this.
2. We have maps in our title collection in the area of each country. A lot of them are tear-outs from magazines, maps from newspaper articles, some are from plates of unknown atlases. Very often they would have a simple title, e.g. United States, either printed or supplied by catalogers, and do not have citation of their origin. They are clearly different works even though the title or preferred title are the same. It will be hard to bring out "Work" difference in the authorized access point for the work because the bibliographic information is minimal.
During the discussion several ideas came up, including that of an “undifferentiated work record,” for example: “China.” But this didn’t seem useful because our users are looking for a geographical place, topic, and time, not a work. Coordinates don’t identify the work; rather, they are a tool to identify a geographic area on the earth’s surface. So they are not really a work attribute. A further complication is that political boundaries often change.
Large map series could possibly be treated according to the FRBR model; sometimes they come out in several editions, which could be expressed as a work and expressions. Generally, though, we felt that WEMI is not useful for maps.
The MAGIRT CC:DA representative, Min Zhang (Library of Congress), will draft a proposal stating that we will generally catalog cartographic resources at the Manifestation level. In specific cases where it is deemed useful by the cataloger, work and expression-level records will be created. Mary Laarsgard will assist in reviewing it, and then it will be submitted to the MAGIRT Cataloging and Classification Committee; from there it will go to CC:DA as a formal proposal at Annual 2013. Discussion will take place on MAPS-L and with other appropriate bodies. In the first quarter of 2013 when we begin cataloging with RDA, we will gather specific use cases and visual images to illustrate and support the proposal.
The group next considered the discussion paper (Janice Young, May 24, 2012) entitled “Proposed Treatment of Globes in the LCGFT Environment.” We endorsed the proposal, and Susan Moore (MAGIRT CCC) will draft a response for Janice Young.
A brief discussion was held about who is cataloging under RDA:
Few of us have cataloged cartographic resources using RDA. Library of Congress Geography and Map Division will be trained last because of the special nature of their materials. Tammy Wong is considered “fully trained” because of her involvement in testing, but most records are created using AACR2. Paige Andrew (Penn State) has done some RDA cataloging. He plans to train the copy catalogers in RDA first (they are already seeing RDA records), and then the original catalogers.
Min reported that at LC some G&M catalogers suggest not cataloging National Park Service maps, tourist maps and puzzle maps. We had a lively discussion about the puzzle maps, of which there are about 200. The group did not express any specific concerns about LC cataloging practice for these materials.
A question arose on MAPS-L about the definitions of the form/genre terms “geospatial data” and “geodatabases.” The need for a glossary or scope notes will be discussed in the MAGIRT CCC meeting; feedback will be given to Janice Young.
Min encouraged us to send cartographic cataloging questions to mapcat@loc.gov . She monitors this list, and will be sure to follow up on our questions.
Nancy Kandoian reported on the DCRM(C) meeting which she attended. There will be a public hearing about the draft of the DCRM(C) document at Annual 2012 in Chicago. DCRM is now looking at what adaptations are needed for use with RDA. “RDA alternatives” will be published on a web site and not in a published manual.