CURRENT Discussions:

BSC Review:  Page 93, footnote: suggested rewording of the final sentence: "However, following the metric convention of using spaces or periods for this purpose, as is standard practice in some countries, is also acceptable." (the current text reads as a bit U.S.-centric to me: elsewhere as opposed to what?).

MT: It seems clear enough to me that "elsewhere" means other than the U.S. (since that is where LC is located) but the suggested change would be fine with me. 12/14/15

NK: Fine with me, too. 12/16/15

TF: Me as well. 12/17/15

MT: Done. 12/31/15

BSC Review:  Page 97: Formatting problem at 3B4. Comment for the rule above is running into the heading for this rule: probably just needs a space or line break.

MT: Fixed, 12/14/15

BSC Review:  Page 100, 3C2.2. I think an example might be helpful, either here or at 7B8.2, illustrating what such a note might look like.

MT: Would this work for 3C2.2? (A different example would also be nice for 7B8.2):

; Polyconic proj.

Optional note: Some maps in Transverse Mercator proj. and Lambert conformal conic proj.

http://oskicat.berkeley.edu/record=b11204598~S60

NK:  For 7B8.2, would this be too simple?

          Projections differ.

http://catalog.nypl.org/record=b18309650~S1

12/16/15

LSC: I would suggest that both an example of multiple projections and a note "Projections differ" would be most helpful.  12/17/2015

TF: I agree both examples would be helpful. 12/26/15

MT: Added the 3C2.2 example. The problem with the proposed 7B8.2 example is that 7B8.2 says "Make a note giving projection data additional to, or elaborating on, that given in the mathematical details area." In this case, we have nothing in the mathematical details area. So maybe 7B8.2 needs to be revised? 1/15/16

TF: Perhaps adding something to 7B8.2 like, "additional to, elaborating on, or not already given in the mathematical details area"? 1/6/16

RB: I think Todd's suggestion works. Could we then add the "Projections differ" example? 1/6/16

LSC:I agree with Randy.  1/6/2016

NK: I also agree. 1/6/16

MT: I'm sorry but that suggested language just doesn't sound grammatical to me. Also, I think it would look odd in the context of 7B8.1 and 7B8.3, both of which follow the current 7B8.2 wording pattern exactly. I decided to just go ahead and add the example, leaving the rule as is. I doubt anyone will notice this minor logical anomaly. I guess you could say if there is no projection data already in the mathematical details area, then the note would be "additional" to zero. 1/6/16

LSC: In what way is the phrase ungrammatical?

MT: "additional to" what? "elaborating on" what? Currently, these are followed by the phrase "that given in the mathematical details area" [i.e. the projection data given in the mathematical details area]; if you delete the first part of the phrase, you end up with "additional to ... the mathematical details area" which doesn't make much sense to me. 1/6/16

BSC Review:  Page 101: my sense of order would like to see the 2nd and 3rd examples switched (so that we go from small-medium-large)

MT: Done, 12/14/15

BSC Review:  Page 102: 4th paragraph. I'm having a hard time understanding this; perhaps a comment after the example would help clarify which coordinate pairs were excluded from the resource.

MT: Nancy, can you help here? 12/14/15

NK:  How about (Comment: This series of coordinate pairs within a set of parentheses defines a polygon of area not included in the cartographic material by listing the coordinate pairs of the vertexes of the polygon in a counter-clockwise order. This excluded-area polygon is situated within a larger polygon that describes the overall coverage area of the cartographic material, as described by the series of coordinate pairs given in clockwise order in the previous set of parentheses.)  Clear as mud, as my old boss, Alice Hudson used to say.  I've never seen an example of this in an actual catalog record.  Now that I think of it, it would more likely be applied in the description of digital resources that have that doughnut kind of coverage, which, it seems to me, wouldn't be very often.  So maybe we would be safe in leaving out this paragraph.  But then would we need to run such a revision by the MAGIRT folks?  We probably wouldn't want to leave out the paragraphs about the coordinate pairs describing a basic polygon of coverage area because that seems a more likely-to-be-applied situation, say, when needed to geo-reference a digitized early map.  12/16/15

LSC: Why counter-clockwise?  How about beginning the paragraph in question with something like: If a portion of the polygon is excluded from the larger polygon described in this rule, list the coordinate pairs for any excluded area as given above ....   12/17/2016

TF: I think I understand what this rule is explaining, but I cannot offer any help in clarify the instructions. 12/17/15

NK: To Larry's why counter-clockwise, I guess just to distinguish the excluded-area polygon from the clockwise-described included-area polygon.  I like Larry's suggestion of rewording the paragraph rather than trying to add a clumsy comment such as I composed (unless someone can streamline it).  How about: If one or more portions are excluded from the larger polygon described in this rule (i.e., not covered by the cartographic material being described [or not covered with cartographic detail?]), list the coordinate pairs for the excluded area as given above, but in counterclockwise order.  12/22/15

TF: With some tweaking in the wording, I think Nancy's suggested revision above works for me. 1/1/16

MT: RDA has "If an area or areas within a given polygon are excluded, list the coordinate pairs for any excluded area in counterclockwise order." They use the same example. I find the instruction itself clear, but what I find confusing is the relationship between recording the larger polygon and the excluded area. I assume the 2 examples in 3D2.4 are related (the 1st example being the larger polygon and 2nd being the excluded area), is that right? If so, do you record the string of coordinate pairs for the larger polygon first, then follow it by the string of coordinate pairs for the excluded area, all in one 255 field?

255 ## ... (W 114°/N 32° ; W 117°/N 33° ; W 121°/N 35° ; W 125°/N 43° ; W 120°/N 42° ; W 120°/N 39° ; W 115°/N 34° ; W 114°/N 32°) (W 115°40’/N 33°15’ ; W 115°35’/N 33°20’ ; W 115°55’/ N 33°32’ ; W 116°05’/N 33°32’ ; W 116°10’/N 33°30’ ; W 115°50’/N 33°20’ ; W 115°40’/N 33°15’)

If so, maybe our 2nd example would be clearer if we included both coordinate pair strings and added a comment to say the 2nd coordinate pair string represents the excluded area. Also, what is the MARC subfield coding? Is this where $f (Outer G-ring coordinate pairs) and $g (Exclusion G-ring coordinate pairs) come into play instead of $c?? There are no examples that use these subfields in the MARC documentation, so I'm not sure (and I have no idea what a G-ring is). Would it be like this?

255 ## ... $f (W 114°/N 32° ; W 117°/N 33° ; W 121°/N 35° ; W 125°/N 43° ; W 120°/N 42° ; W 120°/N 39° ; W 115°/N 34° ; W 114°/N 32°) $g (W 115°40’/N 33°15’ ; W 115°35’/N 33°20’ ; W 115°55’/ N 33°32’ ; W 116°05’/N 33°32’ ; W 116°10’/N 33°30’ ; W 115°50’/N 33°20’ ; W 115°40’/N 33°15’)

RB: Maybe we should just go with the RDA version of this rule. It will likely be changed to that anyway in the DCRM-RDA revision, and it basically says the same thing (I think) that Nancy's revision says. As to Manon's question about how to actually record this situation, I have no idea; but if we can figure it out, including an example that shows how to do it would be a good idea. If not, then leaving the example as is is fine with me. 1/6/16

LSC: I am out of my depth here.  Randy's suggestion makes some sense, especially if we are not sure about the use of subfields f and g in the 255 field.  1/6/2016

TF: I also agree with Randy's comment. 1/6/16

NK: The g-ring definitions that I've found aren't understandable enough to me to be able to say this for sure, but I think Manon is probably correct about the applicability of $f and $g in one 255 to this situation.  Even though we have no examples in the MARC format to confirm this, I think we could go boldly out on a limb just to the point of saying that the parentheses with the excluded-area coordinate string follow the parentheses with the included-area coordinate string.  We could show it in the example, with the added comment that Manon suggests, but do you think it will be so long that it just looks like a lot of numbers spit out of a machine?  I like the idea to go with the RDA wording. 1/6/16

MT: I used the RDA language but took Nancy's suggestion to also include some wording to indicate the placement of the string. Kept example as is but added a comment, as requested by the BSC reviewer. Now reads:

If an area or areas within a given polygon are excluded, list the coordinate pairs for any excluded area in counterclockwise order. Give these coordinate pairs as a separate string, enclosed in parentheses, following the coordinate pair string for the larger polygon.

(W 115°40’/N 33°15’ ; W 115°35’/N 33°20’ ; W 115°55’/ N 33°32’ ; W 116°05’/N 33°32’ ; W 116°10’/N 33°30’ ; W 115°50’/N 33°20’ ; W 115°40’/N 33°15’)

(Comment: A coordinate pair string for an excluded area; to be used directly following the coordinate pair string for the larger polygon)

Archived discussions for Area 3