Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Encoded Archival Description: Tag Library : Version 2002 (EAD Technical Document, No. 2) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Encoded Archival Description: Tag Library : Version 2002 (EAD Technical Document, No. 2) book. Happy reading Encoded Archival Description: Tag Library : Version 2002 (EAD Technical Document, No. 2) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Encoded Archival Description: Tag Library : Version 2002 (EAD Technical Document, No. 2) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Encoded Archival Description: Tag Library : Version 2002 (EAD Technical Document, No. 2) Pocket Guide.
Recent Post

This makes the parsing process more difficult and makes it hard to compare arrangement practices across repositories. The issues associated with the permissiveness of the data model and the encoding ambiguousness or redundancy, are not technically errors, since the EAD standard legally allows for them. Indeed, these characteristics of the design of EAD facilitate upstream activities in the archival workflow e.

Encoded Archival Description: Data Quality and Analysis

However, these same characteristics are problematic for downstream activities in the archival workflow e. The second class of problems was those associated with the actual encoding practices within archival repositories see Table 2. With humans in the mix, issues with the quality of the encoding can be expected. In all but four of the TARO repositories, the repository name was inconsistent across multiple finding aids. The nature of these inconsistencies range from the completeness of the full name for a given repository to variations in the mailing address provided for the repository.

Related to the variations in the repository name, the problem of the varying mainagencycode attribute presents challenges for aggregating and visualizing finding aids across institutions. Problem 6 in Table 2 shows that the same mainagencycode can correspond to two different repository names.

This might result from institutional name changes, or institutional merges. While VADA revealed this problem for only four mainagencycode variants, in one case there are records described under the institution's former name, while records are described under its current name. Problem 7 in Table 2 shows the converse situation, where finding aids from the same repository have different mainagencycode values. These variations range from typos and punctuation differences, to completely different codes.

While in most cases these variations refer to the same repository even when the code is completely different , in one case, the repository had finding aids with mainagencycodes of other repositories. This last anomaly could be the result of a repository maintaining overall access to collections that are physically stored at other repositories. However, the parser uncovered some nesting errors in the XML e. VADA also revealed great variations in the use of different arrangement levels. Problem 9 in Table 2 illustrates this problem at the top level of the arrangement hierarchy.

While the top level of the hierarchy encoded as recordgrp, collection or fonds should generally be a single node, 27 collections in 6 repositories have more than one instance of this level in a finding aid. Problem 10 in Table 2 show that many finding aids have at least one component level e. This is problematic because it is impossible to automatically infer the arrangement level associated with that component level e. While these encoding problems are usually easily interpreted by humans, they create unnecessary complexity for automatic mechanisms aiming at parsing, aggregating and visualizing finding aids.

The following section elaborates on the implications of these challenges, and suggests possible measures to alleviate these problems. While the application of visualization techniques is commonly used in areas such as data mining and data warehousing Allen, , this remains a nascent area for the archival profession. Information visualization, in particular, has been seen as a way to support analytical reasoning for archivists Lemieux, This notion of visual analytics is seen as applicable to archival work such as appraisal Xu et al.

The work of this research team is geared toward the use of visual analytics as a tool to study the archival practice of arrangement. Many of the problems identified in this work are the result of a mismatch between the needs and practices of the people working upstream in the archival workflow e. Specifically, EAD seems to be biased towards the creation and encoding of finding aids, and away from the needs of those that subsequently wish to use them.

See a Problem?

This work highlights the situated nature of standards for metadata description. As this work reveals, EAD allows great flexibility in the encoding of finding aids. This is a positive factor for encoding legacy data, and accommodating the practices of multiple different archival repositories. However, the resulting encoding is unnecessarily hard to process by automatic mechanisms. Visual analytics tools often have to iteratively parse and process the data in order to account for anomalies and variations. Finding and documenting such problems with the EAD encoding is a key first step in instituting more rigorous control over descriptive and encoding practices that facilitate the aggregation, visualization and analysis of archival data.

Require the use of core elements and attributes across all finding aids and repositories. Remove conditions that permit the encoding of the same data in multiple places, as this makes it difficult to aggregate and allows for data inconsistencies.

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) at UW Libraries

Create a stricter data model that constrains the encoding of certain elements and attributes to specific parts of the EAD structure. Have finding aids define explicitly the correct hierarchical order of the component levels, and enforce that order. Enforce explicit tags for all values e. Mandate that all general values for a collection are explicitly tagged e.

Encoded Archival Description (EAD)

As TARO and other consortial sites look to the future and seek to improve search features and usability, and the archival profession works on revising standards such as EAD, archivists should also engage in a larger dialogue about the purposes and values of both metadata standards and the archival practices that are captured within them. By focusing on past practices, and the practices of here and now, the potential of EAD will remain unrealized and archivists may miss the opportunity to create robust encoding practices and tools that allow us to aggregate, visualize and analyze our finding aid data in new and transformative ways.

Volume 51 , Issue 1. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account. If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username. Computer Science Free Access. Ciaran B.


  1. Navigation menu.
  2. Crosswalk sources - ICA-AtoM.
  3. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology Vol 6, issue 4, December 2010.
  4. Better, Faster, Stronger | Colati | Library Resources & Technical Services.

Trace E-mail address: cbtrace ischool. Haoyang Li E-mail address: haoyang. Sarah A. Buchanan E-mail address: sarahab utexas. Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation. Share Give access Share full text access. Share full text access. Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article. ABSTRACT In order to authenticate the meaning of collections and to preserve their evidentiary value, archivists create documents finding aids that describe the provenance and original order of the records MacNeil, Figure 1 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint.

Figure 2 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint. Figure 3 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint. Figure 4 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint. ID Problem Description Col. The traditional model for archival arrangement and description largely fails to acknowledge both the necessity for minimal item-level control over digital objects in the digital repository environment and the potential for productivity tools and consistent descriptive standards to enable the standardized description of content below the series level.

Just as collection development selectors approve monographic materials to be cataloged, Special Collections and Archives curators, as well as the University Records manager, make decisions on processing priorities. Not all items in each archival collection are cataloged at the item level, and the curators work with the processors to decide what is cataloged and digitized.

This decision process varies by collection and the research value of the collection. The implementation of the consolidated cataloging and archives processing units at Penrose Library was the result of more than a year of discussion, planning, and staff training. The goal was to streamline all processing, especially archives processing, and integrate the management of unique digital content and standards-based record creation into the materials-processing workflow.

Before this could be accomplished, the library had to reconcile two seemingly opposing cultures. To facilitate the interdisciplinary training and to ensure that professional standards were being maintained, the archives staff worked with an archival metadata consultant to produce the Descriptive Policies and Practices Manual DPPM. The DPPM identifies the desired data elements for each level of archival description: collection, series, container or folder, and item.

The History of Metadata For Libraries

Definition, format guidelines, best practices and standards, and local examples are included for each element. Each data element described in the manual was categorized as either mandatory or optional. Mandatory fields had to contain the appropriate information or a locally defined default statement and could not be left blank. Optional elements were left to the processor or archivist to determine whether the use of the element was appropriate and to provide the information. While the DPPM was being written, plans were made to select a new standards-based archival collection management system.

SCA needed a system that would serve both as a collections management system and as a vehicle to output metadata. It needed to be scalable, standards-based, and interoperable. The SCA chose Re:discovery Proficio, a standards-based system that would serve as a management tool for both print and digital formats and as the metadata provider for a public access tool. Each of the data elements described in the DPPM corresponded directly with a field in a Re:discovery record, depending on the applicable level of description. The DPPM provided standards for field use so that productivity tools inherent in database management systems could be used to minimize data entry time.

These tools made it possible to copy and clone records as well as set up templates so that fields with homogeneous metadata subject access terms, physical characteristics, etc. These tools facilitated the kind of efficiency required to make the item-level cataloging of unique materials a reality.

This is the case because, especially in lower levels of description, individual records within any particular collection or series are almost entirely homogeneous in many respects and can be batch-generated. Cataloging staff added information on the basis of the unique nature of the object in hand. The resulting record has both unique information about that object and contextualizing information that make sorting and grouping this item by numerous attributes possible. The addition of basic, controlled subject-access terms descriptors to each item-level record, each of which is presented individually within the digital repository with proper attribution as to collection and series, frees the record from the constraints of being discoverable only within the context of its collection.

Rather than being an access or discovery system in itself, the collections management system is a source of data for other systems. For that reason, the system had to have the ability to export content in multiple formats. The DPPM provided the standard for content description and provided the basis for developing export template mapping. This effort was especially important because it helped cataloging staff learn about the back end of the software and allowed the special collections staff to become familiar with library metadata approaches. Training was essential to combining the units and merging workflows.

Archival processing is an organic process that is dependent on continuing discussion between everyone who has a stake in the outcome. Therefore all staff involved in archival processing were trained in the basics of contemporary archival theory and practice. Experience suggests that a better product would result from all staff understanding how the work they did fit into the larger picture, even if the staff person was not directly involved in all stages of processing.

The archival training program set up by the Archives and Technical Services librarians included both theoretical and practical aspects of the archival profession. A series of two-hour training sessions was offered to all staff who would be involved in archival processing. The program was an opportunity to develop new skill sets while building on standard archival skills and to promote team building. The reorganization of library resources to improve workflow in the Special Collections Unit was an enterprise-wide integration of the needs of special collections into the greater resources of the library.

The APU was created by separating the archives processing staff from archives reference services staff and transferring responsibility for archival processing to the Technical Services Unit. Other staff reassignments followed on the basis of a library-wide assessment of changing workflows and needs. Organizational changes were not limited to the Archives and Technical Services units. As workflows and procedures shifted, Stacks Maintenance staff members managed the Special Collections and Archives shelves. Physical space for archives processing was created in the Technical Services area.

The area occupies 34, square feet; approximately 14, square feet approximately 42 percent were converted for use by the APU. Workload responsibilities and priorities within the Technical Services Unit were modified to support archives processing. Inventory and database maintenance projects schedules were extended to provide more time. The item-level cataloging of archives materials in the collection management system was added to the responsibilities of three catalogers.

Catalogers are also responsible for assigning subject headings to collection-level records. Both the Monographs and Serials units were already cataloging special collections books and serials, and that work was integrated into the new structure. Student workers from the Technical Services Unit, who label books and process government documents for remote storage, were assigned basic tasks for archives processing. End Processing staff members were assigned three hours per week to assist Special Collections in various lower-level tasks, such as box building.

In addition, an experienced catalog technician, working with the head of Technical Services, was assigned to work on the back-end configuration of the collections management system to align it to meet the standards for MARC and export through MODS. Four catalogers now spend at least some portion of their time processing archival materials.

One spends a minimum of twenty hours per week on some phase of archival cataloging e. Three other catalogers spend three to four hours per week on item-level processing. The team structure has proved especially beneficial in maintaining communication across the newly reorganized units, necessary because the culture of archival processing changed from a one person—one collection relationship to a many people—one collection relationship.

The higher, intellectual levels of description, collection, and series are still performed by either professional archivists or highly trained staff members under the supervision of trained archivists, but many people touch the collection at different stages of work. Student processors and hourly workers are assigned lower-level tasks as needed. All stages of processing are highly important and contribute to the quality of the description of archival collections, and that concept always is conveyed to all staff.

Processing backlogs exist in most archival collections, and the local situation—with a significant backlog of legacy collections having little or no processing—was no different. Since one goal of the APU is to gain complete physical control over all collection materials, these materials were integrated into the workflow in multiple ways. One approach to dealing with some of these legacy collections has been to use scanning requests from users as processing opportunities. Another approach is to gain basic physical control over boxes and use that information to inform processing decisions.

Under the new workflow, a photograph requested for scanning is first sent to the APU. The staff enters the photograph into the collections management system and is given the next number in the numerical sequence for that collection. The photograph then has an identification number that can be used as the file name when the photograph is scanned. The photograph is then sent to the Digital Production Services Unit for scanning following the scanning standards set up for archival materials.

Early in the process, the APG decided to implement standard subject access points within the collections management system to organize and describe photographs and other images. In this way photographs can be cataloged in the order that scanning requests are presented.

Because the access point is a subject term rather than an intellectual series, when this record is exported to an access system a user is not required to look in the artificial Buildings series to locate images of university buildings. A subject heading may denote the presence of a university building in the image, thus providing the user with the ability to retrieve more useful resources and to recontextualize the object depending on his or her needs.

This access to the photograph does not require the user to understand where that particular record resided in a largely arbitrary organization. In this way, processing workflow is not only more efficient, it also supports more flexible discovery for the user. Not all collections are as homogenous and easy to process as the photograph collection. Many collections, especially personal papers, contain random boxes of material that have little or no intrinsic order. Since these materials were already part of the collection, they could not be accessioned again, yet needed to be accounted for and managed prior to processing.

A separate database, called the Unprocessed Materials Database UMDB , was set up in the collections management system to handle accessioned but unprocessed material. The UMDB allows the APU to gain physical and basic intellectual control over newly accessioned material and create a preliminary collection inventory.

The item-level cataloging of archives materials in the collection management system was added to the responsibilities of three catalogers. Catalogers are also responsible for assigning subject headings to collection-level records. Both the Monographs and Serials units were already cataloging special collections books and serials, and that work was integrated into the new structure.

Student workers from the Technical Services Unit, who label books and process government documents for remote storage, were assigned basic tasks for archives processing. End Processing staff members were assigned three hours per week to assist Special Collections in various lower-level tasks, such as box building. In addition, an experienced catalog technician, working with the head of Technical Services, was assigned to work on the back-end configuration of the collections management system to align it to meet the standards for MARC and export through MODS.

Four catalogers now spend at least some portion of their time processing archival materials. One spends a minimum of twenty hours per week on some phase of archival cataloging e. Three other catalogers spend three to four hours per week on item-level processing. The team structure has proved especially beneficial in maintaining communication across the newly reorganized units, necessary because the culture of archival processing changed from a one person—one collection relationship to a many people—one collection relationship.

The higher, intellectual levels of description, collection, and series are still performed by either professional archivists or highly trained staff members under the supervision of trained archivists, but many people touch the collection at different stages of work. Student processors and hourly workers are assigned lower-level tasks as needed. All stages of processing are highly important and contribute to the quality of the description of archival collections, and that concept always is conveyed to all staff.


  1. Recent Post?
  2. Frommers Portable Chicago (2008) (Frommers Portable).
  3. Love Me or Ill Kill You.
  4. Encoded Archival Description (EAD) at UW Libraries — UW Libraries?
  5. Advances in the Theory of Riemann Surfaces, Proceedings of the 1969 Stony Brook Conference.
  6. See a Problem?;
  7. Same-Sex Marriages: New Generations, New Relationships.

Processing backlogs exist in most archival collections, and the local situation—with a significant backlog of legacy collections having little or no processing—was no different. Since one goal of the APU is to gain complete physical control over all collection materials, these materials were integrated into the workflow in multiple ways. One approach to dealing with some of these legacy collections has been to use scanning requests from users as processing opportunities.

Another approach is to gain basic physical control over boxes and use that information to inform processing decisions. Under the new workflow, a photograph requested for scanning is first sent to the APU. The staff enters the photograph into the collections management system and is given the next number in the numerical sequence for that collection. The photograph then has an identification number that can be used as the file name when the photograph is scanned.

The photograph is then sent to the Digital Production Services Unit for scanning following the scanning standards set up for archival materials. Early in the process, the APG decided to implement standard subject access points within the collections management system to organize and describe photographs and other images. In this way photographs can be cataloged in the order that scanning requests are presented. Because the access point is a subject term rather than an intellectual series, when this record is exported to an access system a user is not required to look in the artificial Buildings series to locate images of university buildings.

A subject heading may denote the presence of a university building in the image, thus providing the user with the ability to retrieve more useful resources and to recontextualize the object depending on his or her needs. This access to the photograph does not require the user to understand where that particular record resided in a largely arbitrary organization. In this way, processing workflow is not only more efficient, it also supports more flexible discovery for the user. Not all collections are as homogenous and easy to process as the photograph collection. Many collections, especially personal papers, contain random boxes of material that have little or no intrinsic order.

Since these materials were already part of the collection, they could not be accessioned again, yet needed to be accounted for and managed prior to processing. A separate database, called the Unprocessed Materials Database UMDB , was set up in the collections management system to handle accessioned but unprocessed material. The UMDB allows the APU to gain physical and basic intellectual control over newly accessioned material and create a preliminary collection inventory. Once an accession is complete, the processor creates a collection-level record in the UMDB with the accession number used as the collection number and a brief descriptive title that mirrors the origin of the material.

These are the only two fields that are filled at this level. The processor creates a record for each box or container record under the collection record in the UMDB, and numbers all boxes consecutively, without regard to intellectual order. Processors are instructed to take no more than two minutes to look in the box or container and come up with a few words about its contents. If conservation or preservation issues are present, they are noted in the description field. The processor then adds a barcode to the box or container and scans the barcode into the barcode field.

Accessioned boxes are stored in barcode order in the unprocessed materials area. This preliminary inventory is later used to create a processing plan. When a box is taken for processing, its box record is cancelled in the UMDB. When all boxes have been processed, the collection record is cancelled from the UMDB. This process allows for basic descriptive access and physical control over all special collections materials, processed and unprocessed, while not taking an inordinate amount of time.

Processing on demand and the unprocessed materials database solve two specific challenges facing the APU, but they do not address the issue of providing highly granular access to large groups of items. Creating metadata for thousands of unique collection objects in a manuscript or archival collection has long been considered cost-prohibitive. In the pre—automated environment this was usually the case, and item-level cataloging was reserved for only the most valuable collections.

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) at UW Libraries

Changing user behaviors and demand for item-level access in the digital environment continued to indicate that developing some means of automated, mass metadata creation that could satisfy user demand for highly granular access was imperative. Archival and manuscript collections arrangement and descriptive cataloging have always been highly labor-intensive, frequently involving extensive physical arrangement though not generally description down to the item level. This pattern persists despite evidence that users of archives are confused by both archival terminology and the ways that metadata about primary resources is made available.

The implementation of an item-level archival cataloging content standard the DPPM required some in-house adjustment, since neither AACR2rev nor DACS specifically focuses on the cataloging of item-level unpublished content. Rather than try to choose one schema that could meet all possible needs, the item-level field content in the collections management system was created according to a flexible local content standard that could be mapped to multiple metadata schemas. In this way the APU was strategically placed to support multiple metadata consumers.

Understanding metadata normalization and crosswalks also allowed the unit to play a major role in the development of a batch ingest process for item-level records into the consortial digital repository supported by the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries www. This decision was made because most Web-based access tools are not designed to handle subdivided headings, preferring to use subject descriptors instead. This has the added benefit of not requiring either the processors of these records or the end-user to understand the precoordinated structure of LCSH.

Much of the impetus for the changes described in this paper came when Penrose Library received substantial funding from the University of Denver Athletics Department to process and digitize athletics records collected over many years media guides, game programs, statistics, etc. This project acted as the laboratory where the theories that nonarchivists could process archival collections and mass item-level processing was possible were tested.

The broad range of materials in the collection helped determine that the new process was sustainable and scalable. As described earlier, the DPPM provided standards for field use so that productivity tools inherent in database management systems could be used to minimize data entry time. These tools made it possible to copy records and set up templates so that fields with homogeneous metadata subject access terms, physical characteristics, etc. This is the case because, especially in lower levels of description, individual records within any particular collection or series are almost entirely homogeneous and can be mass generated.

This mass-generated metadata is then available for multiple uses. While generating metadata for unique materials in this manner was technically and procedurally possible, the question was whether or not this metadata is useful. The first use of the metadata was for ingesting both the metadata and related primary content object in this case, a scanned image into the digital repository. As processors worked with the photographs, they developed a number of techniques to accurately date University of Denver athletics photographs.

These techniques proved to be applicable in some cases to cataloging other university photographs. Processors could date photographs on the basis of the type of uniform worn, padding worn, styles of haircuts, or in which building the game was played. Scores could be gleaned from photographs and video that included the scoreboards with the final score. While this level of detailed research at the item level may seem excessive, it was considered an investment in the knowledge base of the system.

As the body of processed content grew, a critical mass of data became embedded in the database so that it became self-referencing. It became increasingly less necessary to refer to external sources for the validation of many information points, since those questions had already been answered in earlier records. As work progressed, the processors became faster and more accurate with the descriptions and formulations of titles and spent less time doing external research. Cataloging programs for football and hockey games was another area that benefited from this collaborative effort.

These materials were closer to the type of materials with which monograph catalogers work on a day-to-day basis, and the catalogers played an important part in setting up and customizing templates to facilitate the batch processing of these records. The item-level perspective that the catalogers brought to these programs resulted in richly detailed records that, without their expertise, would not have been nearly as robust or consistent. As the library gains control over more archival content at an increasingly granular level, providing researchers with a more robust discovery experience becomes possible.

While moving from the item to a more traditional finding aid or collection guide will be possible, the expectation is that researchers will use the item-centric search function more often than the finding aid for initial discovery and access.