Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 13:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Map & GeographyLibraries: Advances inGeospatial Information,Collections & ArchivesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmgl20
Cataloging Digital GeospatialDataKathryn Lage aa University of Colorado at Boulder, Jerry CrailJohnson Earth Sciences and Map Library , 184 UCB,Boulder, CO, 80309, USAPublished online: 08 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Kathryn Lage (2007) Cataloging Digital Geospatial Data, Journalof Map & Geography Libraries: Advances in Geospatial Information, Collections &Archives, 3:1, 39-55, DOI: 10.1300/J230v03n01_04
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J230v03n01_04
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Cataloging Digital Geospatial Data:Current Standards
and Rogue Cataloging Practices
Kathryn Lage
ABSTRACT. The availability and use of electronic cartographic re-sources is growing rapidly and has affected all aspects of map librarian-ship: acquisitions, reference and information services, and cataloging.Map librarians are questioning current practices, juggling priorities,shifting focus, and changing procedures as electronic cartographic ma-terials become a larger part of their map collections. Cataloging prac-tices are no exception to this transformation. This paper presents apreliminary examination of current cataloging rules, guidelines, andpractices for electronic cartographic material, focusing on access points.doi:10.1300/J230v03n01_04 [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<[email protected]> Website: <http://www. HaworthPress.com>© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Digital geospatial data, cataloging, cartographic materials,rogue cataloging, subject headings, subject access, cataloging standards,LCSH
INTRODUCTION
As is the case with digital materials in all disciplines, the availabilityand use of electronic cartographic resources is growing rapidly. Map
Kathryn Lage is Map Librarian, University of Colorado at Boulder, Jerry CrailJohnson Earth Sciences and Map Library, 184 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309 (E-mail:[email protected]) <http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/map/>.
Journal of Map & Geography Libraries, Vol. 3(1) 2006Available online at http://jmgl.haworthpress.com
© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J230v03n01_04 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
library patrons increasingly want their information in digital form,whether to insert into a presentation or to analyze and manipulate in ageographic information system (GIS). Map librarians are responding tothese changes and electronic cartographic materials are now a perma-nent and burgeoning component of map library collections. These mate-rials can be grouped into three general types: electronic atlases, scannedimages of maps, and geospatial data (Jensen 2004). These data includecartographic information in both raster and vector formats. 1
In 2005, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) conducted afollow-up survey (Salem 2005) to their 1999 survey about GIS in librar-ies (Davie, Fox, and Preece 1999). Since 1999, the use of spatial datahas grown at a seventy-two percent rate for the ARL libraries surveyed.Map librarians expect continuing growth in the digital spatial data com-ponent of their collections. For one-third to one-half of respondents tothe ARL survey, responsibility for spatial data services within the areasof cataloging, hours of service, and reference and instruction has in-creased (Salem 2005, 14-15). The growth of digital geospatial data hasaffected all aspects of map librarianship: acquisitions, reference andinformation services, and cataloging. Map librarians are questioningcurrent practices, juggling priorities, shifting focus, and changing pro-cedures as electronic cartographic materials become a larger part oftheir map collections. Cataloging practices are no exception to thistransformation. Cataloging rules and procedures have yet to catch upwith the changing needs of map collections and map patrons.
This paper presents a preliminary examination of current catalogingrules, guidelines, and practices for electronic cartographic material, fo-cusing on access points. Before this exploration goes any further, theauthor must confess that she is not a cataloger. However, map librari-ans–indeed, any librarian–must be interested in methods of access to thematerials in their collections. The impetus for this paper stems fromquestions the cataloging staff at the University of Colorado at Boulderasked while organizing and providing access to the map library’s owngrowing collection of electronic cartographic data, from the realizationthat many others had the same questions, and from experiences helpingpatrons find electronic cartographic materials in the library catalog. Theinvestigations and discussions in this paper view cataloging rules andpractices from the point of view of knowledge discovery: how will li-brary patrons find the digital materials they need? One of the most fre-quent reference questions this author has been asked is, “What GIS dataCDs do you have?” With the advent of other formats and storage meth-ods, that question is framed more broadly, “What geospatial data does
40 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
the library own for [geographic area] or [theme]?” Users also want tosearch or sort by data format type, that is, raster or vector. These arecommon and simple questions that are surprisingly difficult to answerin many collections.
CURRENT CATALOGING STANDARDS
The new edition of Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpreta-tion for AACR2, 2002 Revision (2003) covers new bibliographic de-scription fields for electronic cartographic data: MARC 21, fields 342“Geospatial Reference Data,” 343 “Planar Coordinate Data,” and 352“Digital Graphic Representation,” etc. (Mangan 2003). In addition,other geospatial metadata schemes have emerged: Dublin Core, theUnited States Federal Geographic Data Committee’s Content Descrip-tion for Digital Geospatial Data (FGDC), and ISO standard 19115(Larsgaard 2005, 231). Many of these provide for more detailed de-scriptive elements than MARC 21. The new MARC fields and the fieldsin non-MARC metadata schemes are meant to describe the item, ratherthan to provide subject analysis. These fields enhance the descriptiveportion of a catalog record and allow a user, once a record has been dis-covered, to evaluate the usefulness of a digital geospatial resource.They do not provide for subject access points for knowledge discovery.
Although cataloging rules for the bibliographic description of elec-tronic cartographic materials have been updated recently, standardizedsubject access points within the Library of Congress Subject Headings(LCSH) have not been modernized. The Library of Congress’s Map Cat-aloging Manual, which describes subject analysis, has not been updatedsince 1991. There are ongoing efforts by the Library of Congress and themap cataloging community in the arena of subject analysis, which will beexamined later in this paper. This section will explore the current litera-ture, association newsletters, and accounts of professional workshops;first through a brief discussion of non-MARC metadata schemes and thenthrough an examination of available subject access points.
Non-MARC Metadata Schemes
Much of the literature on cataloging electronic cartographic materialswas published in 1999, the same year as the first ARL survey on GIS inlibraries. The articles published in 1999 assumed that the “main accessvehicle [for electronic cartographic materials] most probably [would]
Kathryn Lage 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
remain the ISBDs and the MARC formats” (Smits 1999a, 310). Be-tween 1999 and 2005 spatial data collections have grown, as has maplibrarians’ application of other geospatial metadata schemes–most prom-inently the FGDC. This progression can be seen in selected articlesabout map cataloging. In Maps and Related Cartographic Materials:Cataloging, Classification, and Bibliographic Control (Andrew andLarsgaard 1999), FGDC is mentioned in two articles specifically aboutnon-MARC metadata (Smits 1999a,b), and is mentioned briefly in anarticle about cataloging electronic cartographic materials (Welch andWilliams 1999). In 1999 and 2001 the use of the MARC format was pre-vailed and it was suggested that the very detailed metadata provided bydata publishers (usually in FGDC format) be incorporated into theMARC record through a link in the 856 field (Welch and Williams1999; Welch, Larsgaard, and Parker 2001). However, in an article pub-lished in 2005, Reese assumes that FGDC will be the primary metadatascheme used for digital data and that libraries will need to convert thatdata into a usable format for the library catalog using crosswalks. “Mapcatalogers will eventually find themselves moving away from . . .MARC as their primary bibliographic description schema and movingtowards the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) (Reese 2005,67).” While Reese’s article focuses on crosswalks to aid in the transfor-mation of non-MARC metadata to MARC for inclusion in traditional li-brary catalogs, some libraries and GIS data centers are creating separatecatalogs for access to electronic cartographic materials through non-MARC metadata. The discussion of metadata in the section on localpractices will investigate this trend further.
SUBJECT ACCESS
Subject headings serve to bring together items that have the sametopic; they should use common terms and should be as specific as theitem at hand allows (Wynar and Taylor 1992, 394-395). A recent studyconfirmed the value of subject headings in a keyword–searchable world,finding that on average 35.9% of searches would retrieve no hits if it werenot for the presence of the search term(s) in a subject heading. In addition,the researchers found that in 31.7% of successful searches the results setswould be reduced by half if subject headings were not present (Gross andTaylor 2005, 219). These dramatic statistics highlight the need for the useof controlled vocabulary in subject access points.
42 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Subject headings are used to describe both the intellectual con-tent–the geographic area and the theme or topic–and the item’s physicalcarrier. The physical carrier is described by form and genre headingsthat would ideally communicate that the data are digital, as well as theformats of the data–raster or vector, and the type of carrier–CD-ROM,tape, hard drive, etc. (Larsgaard 1999, 372). While available LCSHheadings for cartographic materials describe the intellectual contentwell, specific terms do not exist to satisfactorily describe the physicalcarrier (ibid). Although this dearth of terms was noted in 1999, it has yetto be addressed.
Using Fixed Fields to Limit by Physical Carrier
The fixed fields in MARC 21 provide elements in which the cata-loger can describe the characteristics of the item using machine-read-able codes. In most library catalogs, the combination of the data in thesefields provides a method to limit searches by material type. This sectionwill briefly examine the effectiveness of this feature.
Map catalogers use the 008, 006, and 007 fields in combination to ex-press the characteristics of an electronic cartographic item. For exam-ple, the Library of Congress catalogs electronic cartographic materialswith a 008 field to express the cartographic characteristics and a 007field to express the computer file characteristics of the item (Jensen,2004). Other libraries add more fixed fields to records for electroniccartographic material. For example, McGill University catalogers add a006 field for computer files and a 007 field for maps to records forelectronic cartographic materials (Jensen 2004).
The reliability and flexibility of the function to limit by material typeis contingent upon the capabilities of the integrated library systems’(ILS) software and on the local implementation of the software withinindividual libraries. Some catalogs provide more flexibility than others.In the McGill catalog the combination of the data in the 008, 006, and007 fields results in a material type of “digital map.” The information inthe fixed fields in the McGill catalog yields a productive way to limitsearches to electronic cartographic materials. However, some systemsdo not take into account the wealth of information included in the fixedfields. For example, the standard implementation of the Innovative In-terfaces Millennium catalog performs material type limits using a fixed-length code called “material type.” This single-character code is enteredinto the record from the MARC 21 Leader/006 values or the UNI-MARC Leader/007 values (Innovative Interfaces, Inc. 2006, #105766
Kathryn Lage 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
and #101818). In the University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries cata-log for example, this standard implementation allows for a limit by onlyone material type. Therefore, an electronic cartographic item with afield 008 and a 007 field to express the cartographic characteristics of anitem, and 006 and 007 fields for the computer file characteristics will beexcluded from a search limited to computer files because the materialtype in such a record would be coded solely as “maps/globes.” For ex-ample, a search in OCLC’s Worldcat database for “Colorado geologymaps” in the subject field, limited to “computer files” and records foritems held by the University of Colorado at Boulder, nets five results.However, because of the way the information in the fixed fields is trans-lated into only one material type in the Innovative Millennium catalog, asearch with the same terms and limits run in the CU Boulder catalogresults in zero hits.
A review of the thirty-seven Association of Research Libraries (ARL)member libraries that use Innovative Interfaces Millennium software,<http://www.librarytechnology.org/arl.pl?SID=20060411556488037&UID=&auth=> found only one catalog that presented users with modifiedmaterial type limit options for cartographic materials. The University ofSaskatchewan Library catalog, <http://sundog.usask.ca/search/X> allowsusers to limit by a material type of “Map” or by “GIS file” (see Figure 1).Three other libraries changed the wording of the material types to be moreprecise. For example, the University of Washington <http://catalog.lib.washington.edu/search/X> uses the label “Maps/ GIS Data” to notifythe user that this limit searches both paper and electronic cartographicmaterials.
This brief exploration merely illustrates a few problems in regard tothe ability to rely on the capacity of an ILS to make use of the full infor-mation present in the fixed fields in the catalog record. Catalogers’ use offixed fields and the capacity of systems to use that same information vary.The current state of affairs means that users cannot rely on the capacity ofan integrated library system to perform accurate limits by material type.The capabilities of each catalog is sometimes not well- understood bylibrarians; therefore, users cannot be expected to understand the intrica-cies of the system’s interaction with the MARC 21 fixed fields and howthat affects a search by material type. This situation points to a need to ex-press the characteristics of an item in a textual, human-readable field thatuses a controlled vocabulary such as subject access fields. Further studyof these issues would elicit interesting ideas and Solutions that would in-crease access to electronic cartographic materials.
44 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Limitations of Existing Subject Headings
The literature on subject analysis of electronic cartographic materialsis sparse. Most of the literature provides advice on what not to do: whichsubject headings and subdivisions not to use. It is tempting for a cata-loger to want to use one of the many promising-sounding authorizedtopical subject headings as a form subdivision (in subfield “v”). “Maps”is an example of an authorized subject heading that can be used in aform subdivision, for example, as used in the heading “Geology–Colo-rado–Boulder County–Maps.” However, topical subject headings suchas “Geographic information systems,” “Digital mapping” (Jensen 2004),“Computer mapping,” “Maps, statistical” (Larsgaard 1999, 373), and“Geodatabases” are for works about those topics and should not be usedas form subdivisions.
Kathryn Lage 45
FIGURE 1. University of Saskatchewan Library Catalogue with the MaterialType Limits for “Map” and for “GIS file.” <http://sundog.usask.ca/search/X>(Accessed April 14, 2006)
Used with permission.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
In 1996, the Library of Congress created the Cartographic Form/Genre Working Group to study cartographic form/genre terms and howbest to incorporate them into LCSH to use as form subdivisions and inthe 655 field. The working group submitted its findings to the Catalog-ing and Policy Support Office of the Library of Congress (Paige An-drew, personal communication, February 28, 2006), but it was decidedthat any changes should wait until a broad study of form/genre headingsat the Library of Congress was completed (Crotteau 1998). Eventually,this investigation was set aside to work on rule revisions to Carto-graphic Materials: A Manual of Interpretation for AACR2 (Crotteau2002). It appears that this group’s work on cartographic form/genreterms has not been reinvigorated.
Librarians have proposed potential terms that could be added as au-thorized subject headings in many articles and presentations. In a 2001workshop, presenters Welch, Parker, and Larsgaard suggested headingsthat allow the cataloger to designate genre, form, and whether the dataare raster or vector. For example, a work could be assigned the subjectheading “Geology–California–Maps–Digital, Raster–CD-ROM.” Theyfurther suggested “Geographic information system” or “Geographicinformation database” as a free-floating subdivision (2001). These sug-gestions provide a glimpse into improved access to electronic carto-graphic materials that will be possible when accurate, specific headingsare established.
Application of Current Rules and Practices
Given the lack of specific terms to access electronic cartographic ma-terial, what is a cutting-edge map cataloger to do? The free-floatingform subdivision “Databases” should be used for true databases–“col-lection[s] of logically interrelated data stored together in one or morecomputerized files” containing electronic cartographic materials (Li-brary of Congress, Cataloging Policy and Support Office 1996, H1520).Vector data include “both geographic (entity) and attribute (tabular)data” and, therefore, should be assigned a subdivision term of “Data-bases” (Welch and Williams 1999, 360). Records for vector data shouldinclude a subject heading of “[place]–Maps–Databases.” For data pre-sented along with software, a subject heading of “[place]–Maps–Soft-ware” should be added (Hall 2004, 141).
Under the current rules, there is no authorized subject heading to useto denote that a scanned map is in digital form (Larsgaard 2003). Theform subdivision “Databases” should not be used “for items that have
46 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
been scanned and do not have any database associated with them (Hall2004, 141),” nor should it be used for born-digital raster data such assatellite imagery.
The use of “Databases” as a form subdivision was qualified in 1996(Library of Congress, Cataloging Policy and Support Office 1996, H1520),but has not been used consistently by the cataloging community. A searchconducted in the OCLC WorldCat database on February 27, 2006 found479 records for cartographic materials published after 1996 that contain“databases” as a form/genre term 2 . These search results included thirty-six records with the word “vector” (see Figure 2) somewhere in the rec-ord and 101 records that contained the word “raster.” This search high-lights the confusion over the use of the subdivision “Databases.” The
Kathryn Lage 47
FIGURE 2. Record Using Subfield v “Databases” with “Vector” in the SummaryNote Field, OCLC#
The Screen Captures are used with OCLC’s permission. Connexion and WorldCat areregistered trademarks and/or service marks of OCLC Online Computer Library Center,Inc. Used with permission.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
consistent application of this term would present a useful method to try asa first sort for electronic cartographic information in vector format and fortrue databases. However, there is no method to perform a similar sort forelectronic cartographic material in raster format.
It is clear that LCSH has not been updated to reflect the current state ofelectronic cartographic data. One option for map catalogers to follow isthe Library of Congress Geography and Map Division’s current efforts toprovide form/genre access to electronic cartographic material. The Geog-raphy and Map Division adds “Maps–Digital” as an uncontrolled indexterm in Field 653 (Yee 1998). In addition, Library of Congress map cata-logers add the raster or vector data format to the end of the terms“Maps–Digital” (Welch and Williams 1999, 360). A search of WorldCat3found 1,637 records with “Maps–Digital.” The Library of Congress cata-loged 1,590 of these items and forty-seven were cataloged by other insti-tutions. “Maps–Digital–Raster” was assigned to a total of 188 records 4
using the 653 field (see Figure 3); 152 of these were cataloged by the Li-brary of Congress and thirty-six by other libraries. “Maps–Digital–Vec-tor” was added to just forty-six records and all but three of these werecreated by the Library of Congress (February 26, 2006). 5 These searchresults perhaps suggest that the addition of “raster” or “vector” is not be-ing applied consistently and not many libraries have followed the Libraryof Congress’s practice of adding this uncontrolled index term.
Welch and Williams note that, as with “Maps,” the form subdivisionsmay be used in a 653 after other specific material designations such as“Remote-sensing images–Digital–Raster” (1999, 360). However, it seemsthat map catalogers have not incorporated this into practice; a search forthis subject string returned no results, even in records with Field 653“Maps–Digital–Raster” and an additional Field 650 subfield “v” of“Remote-sensing images” in the same record.
ROGUE CATALOGING, OR LOCAL MAPCATALOGING PRACTICES
Metadata Schemes
Some libraries are creating separate catalogs for GIS data in order toincorporate detailed metadata using schemes other than MARC. Thesecatalogs usually include item or layer-level records for individual GISdata layers. This section will present three examples of separate catalogsfor GIS data.
48 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Harvard University Library provides access to GIS data sets at thecollection level through the main library catalog (HOLLIS) using theMARC format (e.g., one record for a DVD which contains many GISdata layers). As an alternative for searchers looking for GIS data, theHarvard Geospatial Library <http://peters.hul.harvard.edu:8080/HG/jsp/HGL.jsp> hosts FGDC metadata for GIS data at both the collection leveland the layer level (Siegel, Burns, and Strawn 2004, 3).
The Geodata Repository at the GIS Laboratory at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology Libraries <http://libraries.mit.edu/gis/data/repository.html> also stores and provides access to GIS data. The Geo-
Kathryn Lage 49
FIGURE 3. Record for Item Cataloged by the Library of Congress with “Maps–Digital–Raster” in Field 653, OCLC# 46328426
The Screen Captures are used with OCLC’s permission. Connexion and WorldCat areregistered trademarks and/or service marks of OCLC Online Computer Library Center,Inc. Used with permission.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
data Repository contains records in FGDC format. Currently, GIS datain CD-ROM or DVD format are also cataloged in MARC and loadedinto the general library catalog, but individual data layers or files are not(Lisa Sweeney, personal communication, February 26, 2006).
Finally, the Davidson Library’s Map and Imagery Laboratory at theUniversity of California, Santa Barbara created the Alexandria DigitalLibrary (ADL) to hold records for geospatial data. The ADL <http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/> uses a customized metadata scheme rather thanMARC because of a lack of existing MARC records, especially at the item-level, for the remote-sensing data that encompasses the majority of thecollection. This decision is explained in a practical manner: “It made moresense to take existing non-MARC catalog records at the item level anddevelop an online catalog software to ingest the records than it did totransform each record into standard catalog form and tape/ftp-load [them]into OCLC/RLIN” (Larsgaard 2005, 237). Records for materials catalogedin the ADL are not added to the main library catalog in MARC format.
These separate catalogs store more specific metadata for GIS data–and usually, interactive spatial search interfaces–than most traditionallibrary catalogs do for digital geospatial data. They provide metadatathat meet patrons’ needs for detailed, precise information about a dataset that is not easy to record using MARC 21.
Subject Headings
Many map catalogers are instituting local practices in order to ac-commodate their patrons’ needs for specific access to electronic carto-graphic materials. These “rogue” catalogers have reacted on a locallevel to pervasive needs not yet met by current cataloging standards.This portion of the paper will highlight a small sample of local practices.
Some libraries are adding a local form/genre heading that containsthe words “maps” and “digital” in various orders. On February 27, 2006there were thirty-two such records in Worldcat, cataloged by seven dif-ferent libraries. 6 Most of these had all the terms in Field 655; a few hada form subdivision of “maps” in a 650 field in combination with “digi-tal” in Field 655. Ten of these records also had the word “raster” in the655 field; three included the word “vector.” It is worthwhile to keep inmind that OCLC searches do not show the full spectrum of libraries’ lo-cal practices as catalogers may be adding local headings within their owncatalogs, but not including these headings in the records uploaded intoOCLC. The extent and variety of local practices warrant further study.Three examples of local practices are presented on the following page.
50 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
The Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections at StanfordUniversity adds a local genre heading of “Geographic information sys-tems data” in Field 655 to all records for GIS data. They also add “Geo-graphic information systems tools” to GIS software programs such asESRI’s ArcGIS (Julie Sweetkind-Singer, personal communication, Oc-tober 18, 2004) (see Figure 4). The University of California, Irvine’sLangson Library assigns “Geodatabases–Electronic resources” as a localgenre heading (in Field 655) for GIS data records (Yvonne Wilson, per-sonal communication, October 15, 2004). The University of Colorado atBoulder’s Jerry Crail Johnson Earth Sciences and Map Library adds theterm “Digital spatial data” as an uncontrolled index term in Field 653 torecords for GIS data (vector and raster), scanned maps, and map softwareprograms such as seamless topographic map CD-ROMs.
Kathryn Lage 51
FIGURE 4. Record Cataloged by Stanford University with 655 “GeographicInformation Systems Data” and 655 “Geographic Information System Tools,”OCLC# 61486120
The Screen Captures are used with OCLC’s permission. Connexion and WorldCat areregistered trademarks and/or service marks of OCLC Online Computer Library Center,Inc. Used with permission.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
These examples serve to illustrate that libraries are instituting a vari-ety of local solutions to aid in the retrieval of electronic cartographicmaterial. These local practices aim to fill in gaps in the existing LCSHcontrolled vocabulary. It is instructive to examine these practices as ex-amples of the different ways catalogers are making GIS data easily andquickly accessible through library catalogs. However, the benefits ofstandardization are well-documented. These non-standard, local prac-tices of many libraries illustrate the critical need for national standard-ization of subject access to GIS data through the creation of authorizedsubject, form, and genre headings.
CONCLUSION
In 1999, Welch and Williams stated that “As is often the case withrapidly developing fields, the choice of valid subject headings in the Li-brary of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) has not yet kept pace withthe need for new subject terms” (1999, 360). Six years later, the avail-ability of digital data continues to grow at an increasing pace, yet therules for cataloging electronic cartographic materials still do not pro-vide for specific access points. It is clear that specific terms to accu-rately describe electronic cartographic materials are needed.
The findings of the preliminary investigation undertaken for this paperraise questions about current practices in map cataloging. How many li-braries are using FGDC (or other non-MARC metadata) and cross-walking it to MARC for the library catalog? Are FGDC records madeavailable in a catalog separate from the main library catalog? If so, doesthe main library catalog point to those records in any way? How many li-braries are creating MARC records and linking to detailed information inpublisher-provided metadata? How many are following the Library ofCongress’ example of using the 653 field for uncontrolled subject head-ings? How many are adding other terms in Field 653? How many are us-ing genre terms in Field 655? Are they local genre terms or are they fromother authorized thesauri? What other methods might libraries be em-ploying to enhance access to electronic cartographic material through thelibrary catalog? In order to answer these questions and document currentpractices, the author is in the process of creating a survey to investigatethe diversity, scope, and extent of libraries’ local practices. The authorencourages all map libraries and map catalogers to participate in the sur-vey. It is in the arena of local practices and adaptations that cataloging
52 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
solutions are being developed. “Rogue” cataloging practices can be thefoundation for permanent change. Data about these practices can be ana-lyzed to catalyze changes in cataloging standards and create systems thatmeet library patrons’ changing information needs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the help and advice received from her col-leagues. She is grateful to Mary Larsgaard and Paige Andrew for their knowledgeableadvice and encouragement. She received indispensable and generous assistance fromChris Cronin, Jina Wakimoto, and John Culshaw of the cataloging and systems depart-ments in the University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries. Most of all, she would like tothank Naomi Heiser, Ilene Raynes, and Laura Wright, her co-workers in the Map Li-brary, for their research assistance, guidance, and invigorating discussions surroundingthe issues presented in this paper.
NOTES
1. Raster and vector are two types of file structures for spatial data. Raster data is rep-resented by a grid in which “each cell in the grid has value that corresponds to the charac-teristic of the spatial feature at that location.” Vector data “uses points and their x-,y-coordinates to construct spatial features of points, lines, and areas.” (Chang 2002, 4-5).Scanned maps and satellite images are two examples of raster data. County boundaries,buildings, streams, and lakes are examples of features usually represented by vector data.
2. WorldCat Search terms: ge: databases and yr: 1997-2006 and dt= “map”3. WorldCat Search terms: su= “maps digital”4. WorldCat Search terms: su= “maps digital raster”5. WorldCat Search terms: su= “maps digital vector”6. WorldCat Search terms: ge= “maps” and ge= “digital”
REFERENCES
Andrew, Paige G., and Mary Lynette Larsgaard, eds. 1999. Maps and related carto-graphic materials: Cataloging, classification, and bibliographic control. NewYork: Haworth Information Press.
Chang, Kang-tsung. 2002. Introduction to geographic information systems. Boston:McGraw-Hill.
Crotteau, Mark. 2002. On the Cataloging/Cataloguing front. base line: A newsletter ofthe Map & Geography Roundtable 23 (1): 9-14, <http://magert.whoi.edu/baseline/pdf/23_1.pdf> (accessed February 5, 2006).
———. 1998. On the Cataloging/Cataloguing front. base line: A newsletter of the Map& Geography Roundtable 19 (6): 6-10.
Kathryn Lage 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Davie, D. Kevin, James Fox, and Barbara Preece. 1999. The ARL geographic informa-tion systems literacy project: A SPEC kit. SPEC Kit 238. Washington, DC: Associa-tion of Research Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management Services.
Gross, Tina, and Arlene G. Taylor. 2005. What have we got to lose? The effect of con-trolled vocabulary on keyword searching results. College & Research Libraries66 (3): 212-230.
Hall, Lucinda M. 2004. Issues & trends: Cartographic cataloging. Journal of Map &Geography Libraries 1 (1): 141-143.
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. 2005. Millennium innovative guide & reference release:2006 limited edition. Emeryville, CA: Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
Jensen, Karen. 2004. “Cataloguing cartographic materials on CD-ROM.” Paper presentedat Expanding Access: Connecting The Global Community To A Multitude Of Formats,Montréal, Québec, Canada, <http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/olac/ conferences/2004/jensen.ppt> (accessed February 5, 2006).
Larsgaard, Mary Lynette. 2005. Metaloging of digital geospatial data. The Carto-graphic Journal 42 (3): 231-237.
———. 2003. Cataloging electronic-resources: Cartographic materials-the basics. Aworkshop presented at the Map and Geography Roundtable’s Program at the Ameri-can Library Association Annual Conference. <http://magert.whoi.edu/conf/2003/ch3handout.html> (accessed May 21, 2005).
———. 1999. Cataloging cartographic materials on CD-ROMs. In Maps and relatedcartographic materials: Cataloging, classification, and bibliographic control, ed.Paige G. Andrew and Mary Lynette Larsgaard, 363-374. New York: Haworth In-formation Press.
Library of Congress, Cataloging Policy and Support Office. 1996. Subject catalogingmanual: Subject headings. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Cataloging Distribution Service,Library of Congress (accessed February 20, 2006 through Cataloger’s Desktop).
Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 1991. Map cataloging manual.Washington, DC: Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress.
Mangan, Elizabeth Unger, ed. 2003. Cartographic materials: A manual of interpreta-tion for AACR2, 2002 revision. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Library Association.
Reese, Terry. 2005. Bibliographic freedom and the future direction of map cataloging.Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 2 (1): 67-97.
Salem, Joseph A. 2005. Spatial data collections and services. SPEC Kit 291. Washington,DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management Services.
Siegel, David, Bonnie A. Burns, and Tim Strawn. 2004. HGL: A web-enabled geo-spatial digital library. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual ESRI Interna-tional User Conference, San Diego, CA: ESRI <http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc04/docs/pap1024.pdf> (accessed April 5, 2006).
Smits, Jan. 1999a. Metadata: An introduction. In Maps and related cartographic mate-rials: Cataloging, classification, and bibliographic control, ed. Paige G. Andrewand Mary Lynette Larsgaard, 303-319. New York: Haworth Information Press.
———. 1999b. Spatial metadata: An international survey on clearinghouses and infra-structures. In Maps and related cartographic materials: Cataloging, classification,and bibliographic control, ed. Paige G. Andrew and Mary Lynette Larsgaard,321-342. New York: Haworth Information Press.
54 JOURNAL OF MAP & GEOGRAPHY LIBRARIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Welch, Grace D., and Frank Williams. 1999. Cataloguing digital cartographic materi-als. In Maps and related cartographic materials: Cataloging, classification, andbibliographic control, ed. Paige G. Andrew and Mary Lynette Larsgaard, 343-362.New York: Haworth Information Press.
Welch, Grace, Mary Larsgaard, and Velma Parker. 2001. Report on the cataloguingworkshop on digital cartographic material: Edmonton, Alberta, May 2000. Associa-tion of Canadian Map Libraries and Archives Bulletin 110:(Winter 2001) <http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/assoc/acml/bcc/bccweb1.pdf> (accessed January 9, 2006).
Wynar, Bohdan S., and Arlene G. Taylor. 1992. Introduction to cataloging and classi-fication. Library Science Text Series, ed. Arlene G. Taylor. Englewood, CO:Libraries Unlimited.
Yee, Thompson. 1998. Subject authority data elements and Form/Genre implementa-tion: LC report to ALA ALCTS CSS Subject Analysis Committee (SAC) Subcommit-tee on Form Headings/Subdivisions Implementation, <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/formgenr.html> (accessed February 4, 2006).
Received: March 2, 2006Reviewed: March 24, 2006
Accepted: April 14, 2006
doi:10.1300/J230v03n01_04
Kathryn Lage 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mou
nt S
t Vin
cent
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
3:18
05
Oct
ober
201
4
