Archives, Digital Archives and Encoded Archival Description
Chris PromAssistant University Archivist
University of IllinoisMortenson Visiting Scholars Tech Training
April 19, 2006
Intro
• Overview of Archives, Arrangement and Description
• Review Standards and Tools related to Archival Description
• Review Standards and Tools for providing access to digital archival materials
• Lots of interaction
Archives Background
• Archives: Organized non-current “records”; generated by institutions
• Manuscripts: non-current “papers”; generated by individuals or families
• Preserved because of ‘enduring’ value– Not necessarily ‘permanent value’
• Both generally referred to as “collections”
The Archival Mission• Identify, preserve, make available records and papers
From Gregory Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives
Libraries ArchivesNature Published, discrete, make
sense on own, multiple copiesUnpublished, grouped with related items, make no sense on own
Creator Many One parent organization
Method of Creation
Each created separately Organically produced as part of normal business or life
How Received Selected as items Appraised as groups
How Arranged By subject classification Provenance and original order (structure and function)
How described By item In aggregate (record group, series, collection)
Where described Built into item itself (provided title, author, CIP data), in catalog
Prepared by archivist (e.g. supplied title) in ‘finding aids, guides, inventories, databases
How accessed Items circulate No circulation
Based on chart in Hunter, Developing. . . p. 7
Archival Appraisal 101
• Process of determining ‘value’
• Done over aggregates not items
• Primary: operational, legal, fiscal, administrative
• Secondary: Historical or ‘archival’ value
• Types of archival value– Evidential: documents
organization and functioning of organization
– Informational: sheds light on people, events, things aside from organization
Credit: Hunter, p. 51
Archival Arrangement 101
• Provenance– Records from one creator must not be intermingled
with those from another– NOT by subject
• Original order– Maintain records in order placed by creator
• Five “levels” of arrangement– Repository – Record group/subgroup (organizationally related group)
– Record series (set of files or documents maintained as a unit)
– File (folder, binder, packs for convenient use)
– Item (one document, letter, etc)
Levels of Arrangement: Examples
Repository University Archives Special Collections
Record Group College of Engineering Champaign County Republican Party
Series Dean’s Office Correspondence Files
Speaker’s Committee File
File Unit Federal Aviation Administration
Barry Goldwater, 1960-70
Item Letter to FAA Director, June 12, 1968
Copy of remarks by Goldwater to CCRP, August 23, 1965
Arrangement of “Papers”
• The mixed repository model• Term “series” in papers often refers to internal
divisions in a collection.• Thurgood Marshall Papers:
– “The collection is arranged in five series:• United States Court of Appeals File, 1957-1965, n.d. • United States Solicitor General File, 1965-1967, n.d. • Supreme Court File, 1967-1991, n.d. • Miscellany, 1949-1963 • Oversize, 1967, 1991”
Description of Archives
• Establish administrative control over archival materials– Locate collections– Identify their source, creators (chain of custody)– Outline contents
• Establish intellectual control– General nature of repository– General contents of collection– Detailed information on specific collections– Summarize information across several collections
• Important for both authentication and access• Internal vs. Public finding aids
Principles of Description*
• “Multilevel Description”– Proceed from general to specific– Provide information relevent to the level of
description– Link each level of description to next higher
unit of description– Do not repeat information, provide it only at
highest appropriate level
* Summarized from ISAD(G) General International Standard Archival Description
Finding Aid
• Basic Access Tool is the “Finding Aid” also known as ‘inventory’ or ‘register’.– Prefatory material– Introduction– Biographical sketch/agency history– Scope and content note– Series description (organization)– Container Listing– Index (less used now with electronic finding aids)
Elements of Description
• 26 in ISAD (G) (www.ica.org/biblio/cds/isad_g_2e.pdf) • Identity
– Reference code, title, dates, level of description• Context
– Name of creator, biographical or admin history, source of materials
• Content/Structure– Scope/content, appraisal information, arrangement
• Conditions of Access/Use• Allied Materials (copies, originals, related)• Notes• Description Control (author of description, revisions)
Finding Aid Examples
• Reston Papers and Third Armored Division Assn (bring along)
• American Crystal Sugar Co.
• Thurgood Marshall Papers
Questions?
• Next:– Overview of standards and tools for
description of paper and electronic materials, and tools for access to electronic collections.
Establishing a good descriptive system
• Takes planning, awareness of resources• Deciding on ‘platform’ or computers should
be LAST step• Better to describe all materials at high
level than put all effort into one collection• Beware tendency to do lower levels of
description before higher levels• Inventory MUST be the key• Use a content standard
Describing Archives: A Content Standard
• Provides rules/advice about the quality and structure of informational content– 8 principles– What to put in the 26 elements recommended by
ISAD (G)– Rules for describing creators and forms of names– Complement to AACR2– Provides mapping to appropriate data structure
standards
MARC21
• Advantages: Can use regular library software, provides integrated access with non-archival materials
• Disadvantages: Can undermine provenance, relationship to other materials may be lost
• Recommendation: USE MARC Cataloging as first step in PUBLIC finding aids
Cataloging Archival Materials
MARC 21 Sample
Typical Fields for Cataloging Archival Materials
Personal Name 100
Corporate Name 110
Title 245a,b
Inclusive Dates 245f
Physical Description (volume) 300
Arrangement/Organization 351
Biographical/Historical Note 545
Scope/content note 520
Restrictions on Access 506
Terms of Use 540
Provenance 561
Subject added entry 650s
Personal name added entry 700
Personal name as subject 600
Corporate name as subject 610
Link to finding aid or digital collection 856
Word-Processed Finding Aids
• Advantages: Easy to create, maintain
• Disadvantages: Not in standard format, cannot exchange with others, lack of coded fields
• Recommendation: Very useful for most institutions. Can be published to Internet via PDF
Encoded Archival Description (EAD)
• Data structure standards for descriptions of manuscripts or archives-->finding aids
• At any level of granularity
• Typically collection level
• sgml and xml versions of DTD
• <dao> tag for linking to archival surrogates
EAD
• Advantages: Best interoperability and data exchange, easier to implement with others (consortia)
• Disadvantages: Tool development still weak, steep learning curve.
• Recommendation: If you have good technical skills, and a basic archival program is in place, and resources are available, implement it
EAD Samples
• Static:– http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ead/ua/1505023/1505023f.html – http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/e/edwards.htm
• Conversion on server: http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/e/edwards.xml
• PDF: http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/e/edwards.pdf
• In digital library software:– http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/EAD/index.html– http://www.oac.cdlib.org/
• Other implementations– Cheshire: http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/
EAD Structure 1
• XML: perfect way to implement principles of ‘multi-level description– many elements optional– most repeatable at any level, nesting can vary– Normalization possible, but not common for
most finding aids
EAD Structure 2
• <eadheader> (information about EAD File)
– <eadid> unique id– <filedesc>
<titlestmt><publicationstmt><notestmt>
– <profiledesc><creation><langusage>
– <revisiondesc>– <frontmatter> (deprecated element, repeats info for
display)• <archdesc> (information about materials being described)
Common Top-Level <archdesc> Elements
<did> (descriptive id) <origination> <unitititle> <unitdate> <physdesc> <abstract> <repository> <unitid><bioghist><scopecontent><arrangement><controlaccess><accessrestrict>
Other elements include <accruals>, <acqinfo>, <altformatavail>, <appraisal>, <custodhist>, <prefercite>, <processinfo>, <userestrict>, <relatedencoding>, <separatedmaterial>, <otherfindaid>, <bibliography>, <odd>Linking elements: some based on XLink spec, suite of linking elements includes <archref> ,<extref>, <daogrp>
All of above elements are repeatable for components of the collection, at any level in the <dsc> (description of subordinate components)
Description of Subordinate Components
• nested components (i.e. <c> [unnumbered] or <c01>, <c02>, etc. [numbered]) represent intellectual structure of materials being described
• <container> elements (within each level) represent physical arrangement
• Maximum depth of 12 levels (not a good idea to use all of them)
• All elements available in archdesc top level also available in any component (typically not used)
A “raw” EAD File
• http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ead/xml/2620016.xml
EAD Tools: Creation
• Current options– Text editors (cheap, no built in validation,
transformation or unicode support)• Notetab• Word Processors
– XML editors (graphical view, built in validation, transformation, unicode support, FOP; tend to be buggy)
• XML Spy• oXygen • XMetal (not recommended)
– EAD Cookbook highly recommended, templates for Notetab, oXygen
EAD Tools: Display
• Most common to transform to HTML– Static via xsl stylesheet on command line or in
authoring software, then upload files to server– Client-side via link to css or xsl (dicey)– Server side transform engine (saxon, msxml,
xalan, etc) via servlets
• Dynamic (searchable)– dlxs findaid class
XML Transformations
XML
XSLT2
HTML1
HTML2
HTML3
HTML4
XSLT3
XSLT4
XSL-FO
XSLT1
XSL PARSER
Typical XSL file
Collection Management Tools
• Advantages: Software tailored for Archives, easy data entry
• Disadvantages: Few options currently exist. May be difficult to ‘migrate’ forward at a future point. Also not automatically online
“CMT” Examples
• Past Perfect http://www.museumsoftware.com/
• Archivist Toolkit http://www.archiviststoolkit.org/
• UIUC “Archival Information System”
AIS Demo
• www.chrisprom.com/ais/admin
• Login: guest
• Password: guest
Break for Questions
• Next: Digital Archives Standards and Tools
Libraries ArchivesNature Published items, each item
discrete, make sense on own, multiple copies
Unpublished, grouped with related items, make no sense on own
Creator Many different One parent organization
Method of Creation
Each created separately Organically produced as part of normal business or life
How Received Selected as items Appraised as groups
How Arranged By subject classification Provenance and original order (structure and function)
How described By item In aggregate (record group, series, collection)
Where described Built into item itself (provided title, author, CIP data), in catalog
Prepared by archivist (e.g. supplied title) in ‘finding aids, guides, inventories, databases
How accessed Items circulate No circulation
Digital Libraries or Archives?
The “on a horse” problem
• Best systems mix archival and library approaches
• Complete item description AND• Full context AND• Link to complete collection
(including description of off line items)
Sample of Digital Library/Archive Projects
• http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html
• http://www.oac.cdlib.org/
• http://www.ohiomemory.org/index.html
• http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/
• http://www.marquette.edu/library/MUDC/
• http://www.library.uiuc.edu/archives/coll/dl/bot/bot.html
Digital Library/Archive Standards
• Background on Metadata
• For images: Dublin Core
• For texts: TEI
• For information exchange: METS, OAI
• For Digital Preservation: OAIS Reference Model
Archivists and Metadata
• Structured data about an information resource
• Metadata by itself doesn’t “do” anything.
• Metadata schemas provide “buckets” for information about resources.
• Metadata needs to be interpreted by a system or user.
• Metadata provides context to help machines (and more importantly people) interpret content
• People usually talk about applying metadata to digital materials, but. . . . . .
This is Metadata
These are metadata
fields
same thing electronically
Metadata Fields
The metadata itself
Now as xml “metadata”
Descriptive and
administrative
This is Not Metadata
This is!
Metadata is about context and relationships
This is metadata, but. . .
Incomplete
Embedded in object
Not self- explaining
More complete Not embedded Relational Not self-explaining
Metadata and Code and human user
beginning to do something with metadata
But. . . Not self-explainingCan’t be exchanged
Non-embedded Self-explaining But relationships lost
now as xml metadata
Dublin Core
• Developed in 1995 for authors to describe own web resources
• Very simple, only 15 broad categories in the “simple” version
• Advantages: commonly held set of elements is easy to understand, built into many current tools
• Disadvantages: loss of specificity
The 15 elements:
• Content– Coverage– Description– Title– Type– Relation– Source– Subject– Audience
• Intellectual Prop– Contributor– Creator– Publisher– Rights
• Instantiation– Date– Format– Identifier– Language
Dublin Core Resources
• http://dublincore.org/
• http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot/
Text Encoding Initiative
• Encode any text with structural markup, deep semantic markup, or any combination of the two
• Section for metadata in <teiHeader>
• http://www.tei-c.org/
• Typically need xml editor to create, software such as DLXS to display
• http://media.library.uiuc.edu/projects/bot/xml/index.htm
OAIS Reference Model
• Based on Archival Principles
• Three parties involved with digital information– Producers; SIP: Submission Information Packet– Managers; AIP: Archival Information Packet– Consumers (Users); DIP: Dissemination Information
Packet• http://www.library.cornell.edu/iris/tutorial/dpm/foundation/oais/
index.html
“Simple” OAIS Model
METS
• Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard• Standard for encoding descriptive,
administrative, and structural metadata regarding objects within a digital library
• Outgrowth of Making of American II project• Provides metadata for compound text and
image-based works• Need purpose-built software to display and
navigate.
METS: Why bother?
• Based on the OAIS Reference Model. It Includes support for:– Submission Information Packet– Archival Information Packet– Dissemination Information Packet
• Not only for transfer and archival management, but for giving access to, navigating an object
• It “plays well” with other systems (EAD, MARC, TEI, VRA etc)
• Software will be coming (support in Archivist Toolkit, NDIIPP projects)
• BUT. . . . It is currently very complex.
OAI-PMH
• Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting
• Not cross-database searching• metadata harvesting• Data Providers (expose collections in a
common syntax)• Service Providers (use metadata
harvested via the OAI-PMH as a basis for building value-added services)
OAI Example
• OAIster: http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/
Tools for Digital Library/Archive Projects
• CONTENTdm http://www.dimema.com/– Very good, support for dublin core, OAI– Con: expensive– Recommendation: Skip it
• Greenstone http://www.greenstone.org/cgi-bin/library
– Pros: Free, (relatively) easy to configure, low hardware requirements, can run on internet or publish to CD, supported by UNESCO, targeted at developing nations
– Con: tends to be ‘item-centric’, difficult to aggregate materials
– Recommendation: Use it, but as part of large descriptive system
Thanks!!!!
• This powerpoint online at:– http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/workpap
Top Related