LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EAD Archives


EAD Archives

EAD Archives


EAD@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  October 2002

EAD October 2002

Subject:

Re: question about re-engineering

From:

Elizabeth Shaw <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Encoded Archival Description List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:50:52 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

Hi,

This raises many questions about the nature of what people are trying to
do with EAD.

First, are you trying to encode metadata about a collection or are you
trying to encode a representation of a document (the extant finding aid)
that contains information about a collection?

Unfortunately, for a variety of political reasons, including a lack of
common agreement on descriptive practice in the archival community, EAD
is really an encoding scheme that provides a description of a document
that describes a collection - rather than directly describing a
collection (in art they call that derivative). In that sense it is one
step removed from the collection.

Is this what the archival community really wants to do when trying to
provide information on the web to its end users?

There seems to be an uncommon fondness for the finding aid as extant
document in the archival community. Not an archivist, I would argue that
a finding aid should be viewed only as metadata about a collection - and
therefore is not, in and of itself, a document of instrinsic value -
whose representation must be moved forward into the future (as perhaps
we might want to move Shakespeare into the future).  We can still
capture the intellectual contribution of an archivist who has written a
finding aid without capturing it in its original form.

If we instead view the finding aid as a means by which important
information was gathered about a collection in a form (the document)
that is commonly used what really matters is the data contained within
the finding aid. The  representation of the extant document (the
description of the description of the collection) is less important that
capturing the metadata within the finding aid in a way that can be
usefully manipulated and shared.

If you want to take full advantage of the possibilities for machine
processing, (search, retrieval, reuse in a variety of forms) then you
want to focus on the content of the document rather than its form. You
structure the data in ways that help capture semantic meaning (and
thereby give clues to the computer for retrieving the sorts of
information that you want).

Really, the finding aid isn't the artifact that you are trying to
represent. It is the collection, correct?

The analogy, in a library setting: Rather than standardizing data when
moving from a card catalog to a online system, you make a representation
of the card from the catalog, idiocyncratic across various libraries.
Certainly, there is  intellectual effort in making a card catalog entry.
It is however, the metadata about the book  that takes precedence and
not the intellectual effort of the cataloger (though what metadata is
available is certainly her intellectual heritage). The idiocyncracies of
the card catalog that take a back seat (Before anyone jumps down my
throat, I know that finding aids often contain considerable intellectual
content and so the analogy is imperfect).

So, I would argue that thinking about an extant finding aid as anything
more than the convenient container in its era for the information about
the collection will inhibit the full potential of migrating data to a
common electronic format.

Secondly, the wonderful thing about XML is that you can do
transformations that excerpt part of a document, reorder them , reuse in
various formats. Bascially you can slice and dice your data in infinite
ways - including making it look like the old finding aid. Given that you
can do this with XSL, it seems that, regardless of the order in which
you enter data, you can output it in any order. Thus, the order within
the ead instance  should reflect ease of data entry and machine
processing (things like templating that allow a data entry person to
quickly move through the process and identify missing information). And
in fact, as a systems person, I would argue that a more rigid structure
in EAD would have provided those trying to build access systems a number
of  simplified handles on the data.

So, sure, if you view a finding aid as a document that in and of itself
is an artifact, then changing the order would violate its
representation. But, if instead, you think of it as a container (of its
time) for information about the collection, then capturing the original
order is secondary.  What rises to prominence is the collection
description -whatever form that takes.

Liz Shaw




Amy McCrory wrote:

> Has anyone, in attempting to re-engineer legacy finding aids for EAD
> compatibility, encountered resistance on the basis that re-ordering of
> elements into series and other hierarchical levels would violate the
> creator's original order?
>
> Amy McCrory
> Archivist
> Cartoon Research Library
> Ohio State University

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
December 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager