The Digital Mapping Techniques '03 (DMT'03) workshop was attended by nearly 90 technical experts from 36 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 22 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). Although the meeting was slightly smaller than DMT'02 it was, considering the budget deficits in nearly all 50 states, very well attended. This workshop was similar in nature to the previous six meetings, held in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998), in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999), in Lexington, Kentucky (Soller, 2000), in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Soller, 2001), and in Salt Lake City, Utah (Soller, 2002). This year's meeting was hosted by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, from June 1-4, 2003, on the Millersville University campus in Millersville, Pennsylvania. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. This objective was well met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and to renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops.

All the DMT workshops have been coordinated by the Association of American State Geologists (AASG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August 1996, to support the AASG and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and <http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/ standards/datacapt/>). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed for the database— and the State and Federal geological surveys—to provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

At the 2003 meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); 2) digital cartographic techniques, 3) analytical GIS techniques; 4) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 5) progress toward building and implementing a standard geologic map data model and standard science language, and 6) the need to archive both the published products and the data and observational data that support it.