Print

Print


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