Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
> So a reasonable approach to me would be machine connecting LCSH place
> names to formal coordinates, and then human-entering coordinates only
> for such places that does _not_ work for, on an as-discovered basis.
>
> But the larger question is: Who would do even this? Is the cataloging
> community capable of any change whatsoever, or has it been so
> deprofessionalized and under-staffed that there's nobody left to do
> any change at all? OCLC maybe?
>
Well, as you say, bib records have place names and the ones in LCSH are
pretty consistent, so assigning coordinates shouldn't be too hard if we
have a name-to-coordinates database. That works for "place names" but
not for geographical units like "The Alps" or "Pacific Ocean." Points
(cities, individual mountains) and political units (countries) are
easier to map than the actual face of the earth.
What always flumoxed me, however, was how searching by coordinates
should work. We were asked for that capability from our maps librarians
at U of Calif, but when we tried to figure out an algorithm not only
were we mere programmer/analysts stumped, but the maps librarians
couldn't help us. I can't really explain this without diagrams, but
imagine a rectangle... now imagine another rectangle that intersects it.
Then think about the fact that each of these rectangles could be
entirely included inside another rectangle, and that all of the
rectangles are part of the globe. Then have someone give you two points
and try to figure out what records you should retrieve.
We gave up.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jun 25 2008 - 11:10:33 EDT