Two comments in reply to Barbara and to John Harrison's earlier post.
1. For me, the key phrase in John's message was "as resources permit." There is always some level of overhead to any content designation. What's the right balance between cost and utility? It's a hard call but I am bothered by the fact that I've never encountered serious conversation in the profession regarding the cost justification of decisions about the applications of standards.
John asks us to take the plunge into detail on the grounds that we may want it later. However, nothing in my crystal ball suggests that we will have more resources in the future for ever greater levels of metadata specification. Anyone want to argue to the contrary?
2. The same concerns and issues apply to the specific issue of item-level description. My experience does not convince me that the logistical issues are any different for collections whose contents are heterogeneous than for those with more diverse content. Is the increased emphasis on recording physical characteristics in media-rich collections essential for discovery and access? Or is this the archival heir to the concept of descriptive cataloging of the work in hand which emphasizes the representation of certain physical aspects of the work: format, pagination, transcription of identifying information such as author, title and publisher? Is that what our researchers require? Require, I said, not want or would like or would be nice or would be helpful.
Michael Fox
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aikens, Barbara
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: phys-what?
Indeed, this is a problem I think archivists in general face when trying to "fit" item-level descriptions into EAD finding aids that generally describe the other materials on a much broader level - at least for mixed format collections. We (Megan and I) feel that there aren't really many standards for processing our media-rich mixed collections according to an archival approach, rather than item-level cataloging and processing. Of course, we also recognize that it is often appropriate to incorporate item-level description, particularly if the item must be accessed as an item. Most existing guidelines for processing archival media were developed by media-specific units and repositories for whom item-level cataloging is the norm, or collection-level cataloging for collections that are entirely audio visual. Manuscript repositories with mixed media collections who wish to use standard archival approaches to processing and description have been left to develop practices for av components on their own. We've been trying to develop some in-house guidelines for describing av components of larger mixed collections that factor in different levels of processing, such as full or minimal, reformatted or original, etc. We believe it is important to enable effective description and discovery before reformatting has occurred, or even possibly played, rather than after. Perhaps collection and series level description is better suited to the context of a manuscript repository, ensuring that the materials do not become relegated to a special format backlog - particularly if there is no media archivist on staff.
Barbara D. Aikens
Chief, Collections Processing
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
Ph: 202-633-7941
email: [log in to unmask]
Mailing Address
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
PO Box 37012
Victor Bldg., Suite 2200, MRC 937
Washington, DC 20013-7012
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fox, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: phys-what?
Interesting theoretical discussion, but what exactly would one accomplish with all this content designation?
Michael Fox
Michael Fox
Deputy Director for Progams and Chief Operating Officer
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd West
Saint Paul, MN 55102
[log in to unmask]
651-259-3110
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maguire, Marsha
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: phys-what?
Hi, all,
Admittedly, I'm cribbing here to some extent from AMIM (American Moving Image Materials) rules for physical description of video recordings, although AMIM would put more info in the <extent> element, but how about something like:
<physdesc>
<extent>1</extent> <genreform>videocassette<genreform>
<physfacet>U-matic, sound, color</physfacet> <dimensions>3/4 inch</dimensions>
</physdesc>
Leave out "color" if the tape is black-and-white, of course! Just suggesting that sound and color characteristics are useful.
Duration is a problem in EAD. It's another way of stating extent in a way. Could <extent> be repeated after <genreform>?
<physdesc>
<extent>1</extent> <genreform>videocassette<genreform> <extent>(60 minutes)</extent>
<physfacet>U-matic, sound, color</physfacet>
<dimensions>3/4-inch</dimensions>
</physdesc>
Or the duration could follow the number of cassettes:
<physdesc>
<extent>1 60-minute</extent> <genreform>videocassette<genreform>
<physfacet>U-matic, sound, color</physfacet>
<dimensions>3/4-inch</dimensions>
</physdesc>
The tape width is important playback info, so I'd suggest including the dimensions element. The brand name of the tape, Scotch, might be more appropriate in a note, although you could precede "U-matic" with "Scotch."
Best,
Marsha
Marsha Maguire
Recorded Sound Cataloger
Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division
Library of Congress, Packard Campus
Culpeper, VA 22701-7551
email: [log in to unmask]
Opinions are my own.
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Giovanni Michetti
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: phys-what?
Hi Michele,
here my comments:
1. <physdesc><extent>1 Scotch Umatic UCA 60 tape</extent></physdesc>
It's not a proper solution, since <extent> should be used for quantity only.
2. <physdesc><genreform>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</genreform></physdesc>
I don't like it. I wouldn't consider "Scotch Umatic" a type of material
-- I'd rather say it's a "videotape" from the <genreform> point of view.
In fact, looking at the examples in the Tag Library you'll find 'videotape', 'sound recording', 'drawing' etc.
OK, I guess we may consider it as a sort of synecdoche, as we use 'mp3'
to generically mean a (compressed) 'sound recording', but it seems we need to 'stretch' things too much.
Anyway, you may refine it adding <extent>:
<physdesc><extent>1</extent><genreform>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</genreform></physdesc>
3. <phystech><p>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</p></phystech>
It seems a good option.
Actually <phystech> "includes details of [their] physical composition or the need for particular hardware or software to preserve or access the materials" (Tag Library): so I'd note "Scotch Umatic" implies the need for a particular device but it's not per se information about that device. Anyway, I still think <phystech> is a good option.
4. <physdesc><physfacet type="format">Scotch Umatic UCA 60 videotape</physfacet></physdesc>
I don't like it: <physfacet> is about the "aspect of the appearance of the described materials". Of course "Umatic UCA 60" can be handled as 'appearance' but it doesn't seem the best option.
5. What about
<did>
...
<physdesc><extent>1</extent><genreform>videotape</genreform></physdesc>
...
</did>
<phystech><p>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</p></phystech>
?
Too redundant?
Giovanni Michetti
University of Rome "La Sapienza"
Il 07/12/2010 17.43, Michele R Combs ha scritto:
> What's the appropriate element combination to describe the specific type of audio or videorecording, e.g. Scotch Umatic UCA 60?
> <physdesc><extent>1 Scotch Umatic UCA 60 tape</extent></physdesc>
> <physdesc><genreform>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</genreform></physdesc>
> <phystech><p>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</p></phystech> <physdesc><physfacet
> type="format">Scotch Umatic UCA 60 videotape</physfacet></physdesc>
> These all seem about equally right to me. Thoughts?
> Michele
|