Barrington Atlas Work Flow

This page provides information about the editorial workflow and associated processes employed by the Classical Atlas Project in the creation of the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. It informs and underlies the PleiadesWorkFlow.

Special thanks to Amy Hawkins and Jamie Roth whose paper Merope: Content Development Management for the Ancient World Mapping Center (Systems Analysis course, Fall Semester 2000, UNC SILS, instructor: Stephanie Haas) studied the editorial process of the Classical Atlas Project and made some of the fundamental recommendations now seeing fruition in the Pleiades project. The illustrations and text below derive from their work.

Roles and the flow of information

The Classical Atlas Project team consisted of:

• a small project staff located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (director, map editor, directory editor and research assistants)
• professional cartographers located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (initially, the cartographic arm of Donnelly, now GeoNova Group)
• scholarly compilers (geographically distributed world-wide)
• regional supervisors (aka, vicars; also geographically distributed)

An individual (or small team of) scholarly compiler(s) was assigned a particular map. The compliers were responsible for developing and assembling all the component data for that map, to include: toponyms (ancient and modern, including variants), periodicity, secondary references, typology and location. After appropriate discussion with the assigned regional supervisor (vicar) and the project director, this data was submitted to the project office using a standard set of forms, files and pin-registered map overlays, in accordance with a detailed set of editorial instructions. These materials were intensively reviewed by the project staff (to include the checking of bibliographic citations by one of the research assistants). Perceived discrepancies or omissions were discussed with the relevant compiler(s) and vicars. Once consensus and completeness was reached, the revised compilation materials were dispatched to the project cartographers and a first-proof map prepared.

Proof maps, together with draft directory listings, were scrutinized by outside peer reviewers as well as the relevant compilers and vicars. Appropriate revisions and updates were made and the process repeated. In some cases, maps were subject to as many as 3 proof cycles, especially in difficult or controversial areas, or because of late-breaking major discoveries. Throughout, the project staff were also responsible for maintaining consistency between the maps and directory listings, and ensuring the completeness and stylistic consistency of both.

Editorial Process Sequence Illustrated