Map metadata: essential elements for search and storage

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of the issues surrounding the cataloguing of maps in archives and libraries. An investigation into appropriate metadata formats, such as MARC21, EAD and Dublin Core with RDF, shows how particular map data can be stored. Mathematical map elements, specifically co-ordinates, are explored as a source of optimal retrieval. Design/methodology/approach -This paper is based on both the personal experiences of map cataloguers as well as previous literature on map retrieval elements, metadata formats and map retrieval systems. Findings -The difficulties behind map cataloguing do not lie in metadata file formats but rather in maps themselves, staff and budget. They also lie in the lack of map-appropriate retrieval systems and the lack of co-ordinate search capabilities. Practical implications -The practical implications of this work reflect the necessity for strong map-retrieval systems and strength of available metadata formats to store essential map data for retrieval. Future map cataloguers should secure appropriate systems for retrieval and include geographical location information, specifically numerical co-ordinates. Originality/value -This paper provides insight into current issues in map data and the file formats currently used for storing this data. It also investigates current map-friendly systems in use by libraries and archives.

Evaluation of Metadata Describing Topographic Maps in a National Library

“…Usually, users do not look for a specific map; they do not know the title, author, or publisher, so most bibliographic descriptions are practically useless [9]. Secondly, users do not necessarily think about using coordinates in a search [10], although they are directly related to the geographic extent of the map and the objects presented on it [9]. Unfortunately, maps have been mostly described by cataloguers as books [11], despite the fact that the standards include fields and elements of metadata that enable the description of cartographic documents [12][13][14][15], they are usually optional and not supplemented by librarians [16,11].…”

“…Additionally, many studies [18][19][20][21][22] emphasize the need to use geographic data to increase the interoperability of data from various scientific disciplines, which is rather time-consuming. However, the economic factor requires cataloguers to make the descriptions of objects in libraries shorter [10], while the lack of specialized skills make it difficult to extract properly the geographical data needed to complete the metadata record by librarians [23]. This approach results in the fact that the information collected cannot be fully used by map seekers.…”

“…Seven elements (1-7) provide basic info about the object, whereas the other six (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) contain information specific to maps. (Table 2) was developed based on copyrights used in Europeana [49].…”

Exploring the Terra Incognita of Access and Discovery: The Evolution of Cartographic Cataloging in the Twenty-First Century

“…In a survey of eleven libraries with such catalogs, they found that most use FGDC/CSDGM or ISO 19115 as the content standard for geospatial catalog metadata, though some use Dublin Core or homegrown metadata schemas (Kollen et al 2013, 285). Venturing beyond metadata standards for geographic information, Beamer (2009) examined three metadata standards intended for general use: MARC21/AACR2, Encoded Archival Description (EAD), and Dublin Core/Resource Description Framework (RDF), and concluded that all three could be effectively used for map cataloging (Beamer 2009, 34).…”

“…With libraries placing greater emphasis on cataloging unique and rare collections, the need for updated standards, guidance, and tools for cataloging early and rare cartographic resources is clear. Beamer (2009) observed that "map cataloging often requires some detective work … with early maps there is [occasionally] very little information other than the map image itself" (Beamer 2009, 19). Kandoian (2008) Interpretation for AACR2, second edition.…”