Cartographics

[melanieWacker]

References: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/v1/#cartographics http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/subject.html#cartographics

in MODS XML, Cartographics is a subelement of subject. LC MODS RDF treats it as if it was a top level element, not as a subject.

So in a case as the one below from the MODS guidelines, we would generate in MODS RDF cartographicsCoordinates to express that subelement-- is that correct? If yes, would it cause problems if the coordinates really only referred to the geographic name referenced and not to the resources as a whole? Just thinking about our legacy data.

British Indian Ocean Territory 6 00 S, 71 30 E

[melanieWacker]

so the XML coding did not translate .. Trying it this way:

subject hierarchicalGeographic territory--British Indian Ocean Territory--/territory /hierarchicalGeographic cartographics coordinates-- 6 00 S, 71 30 E--/coordinates /cartographics /Subject

[raydAtLC]

“would it cause problems if the coordinates really only referred to the geographic name referenced and not to the resources as a whole? Just thinking about our legacy data.” Could you dig up an example?

Ray

From: melanieWacker [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:37 PM To: blunalucero/MODS-RDF Subject: [MODS-RDF] Cartographics (#28)

References: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/modsrdf/v1/#cartographics http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/userguide/subject.html#cartographics

in MODS XML, Cartographics is a subelement of subject. LC MODS RDF treats it as if it was a top level element, not as a subject.

So in a case as the one below from the MODS guidelines, we would generate in MODS RDF cartographicsCoordinates to express that subelement-- is that correct? If yes, would it cause problems if the coordinates really only referred to the geographic name referenced and not to the resources as a whole? Just thinking about our legacy data.

British Indian Ocean Territory

6 00 S, 71 30 E

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/28.

[melanieWacker]

Never really used it that way, so I am making this up -- but what if you had a resource covering two geographic areas? Let's say a map or guidebook of New York and New Jersey?

subject hierarchicalGeographic state--New York--/state /hierarchicalGeographic cartographics coordinates-- lat,long--/coordinates /cartographics /Subject

subject hierarchicalGeographic state--New Jersey--/state /hierarchicalGeographic cartographics coordinates-- lat,long --/coordinates /cartographics /Subject

[raydAtLC]

Looks like a legitimate example. Need Rebecca to remind me why we decided cartographics is not legitimate as a subject.

[rguenther52]

I don't think I said that cartographics isn't legitimate as a subject. In the development of MODS we considered it to be the coverage of the resource, i.e. the geographic area the resource is about. But we didn't cover the case where the geographic facet is the place where it's captured or published-- that is, origin information. So it shouldn't ONLY be under subject. We should have place information that can be associated with different events in the life of the resource as well as what it's about. Which speaks for taking it out of subject or being able to also use it in relation to originInfo.

In terms of Melanie's example a map could cover multiple places. There are some that have separate maps on one sheet and these would be compound objects. Or a map covers a larger area and either we give coordinates for each separate geographic entity or we give a bounding box for the whole area covered?

Well, I'm not really sure that I'm answering the question and I'm not sure what Ray is referring to that I said (but my memory isn't the best in my old age).

Rebecca

On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:53 PM, raydAtLC notifications@github.com wrote:

Looks like a legitimate example. Need Rebecca to remind me why we decided cartographics is not legitimate as a subject.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[raydAtLC]

Right, it shouldn’t be the ONLY subject component, that is, it should occur only as part of a complex subject.

Yes, that’s it. Thanks Rebecca.

Ray

From: Rebecca Guenther [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:27 PM To: blunalucero/MODS-RDF Cc: Denenberg, Ray Subject: Re: [MODS-RDF] Cartographics (#28)

I don't think I said that cartographics isn't legitimate as a subject. In the development of MODS we considered it to be the coverage of the resource, i.e. the geographic area the resource is about. But we didn't cover the case where the geographic facet is the place where it's captured or published-- that is, origin information. So it shouldn't ONLY be under subject. We should have place information that can be associated with different events in the life of the resource as well as what it's about. Which speaks for taking it out of subject or being able to also use it in relation to originInfo.

In terms of Melanie's example a map could cover multiple places. There are some that have separate maps on one sheet and these would be compound objects. Or a map covers a larger area and either we give coordinates for each separate geographic entity or we give a bounding box for the whole area covered?

Well, I'm not really sure that I'm answering the question and I'm not sure what Ray is referring to that I said (but my memory isn't the best in my old age).

Rebecca

On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:53 PM, raydAtLC notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Looks like a legitimate example. Need Rebecca to remind me why we decided cartographics is not legitimate as a subject.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/issues/28#issuecomment-66723925.

[melanieWacker]

See working group call discussion from 12/12/2014. https://github.com/blunalucero/MODS-RDF/wiki/MODS-RDF-Working-Group-Call-12.12.14