We use the BIBID as the <unitid> for the collection (i.e., at the archdesc level). We didn’t have a particular reason to do so at the beginning, other than we just thought it might come in handy someday. As it turns out, it has, for exactly the function you describe -- a few months ago we embarked on barcoding our containers and are storing the box/barcode relationship as item records in our ILS.
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Noah Huffman
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: System Control Number in EAD
Thanks Mark. I had thought about some kind of "wrap in tag" type strategy in AT. Your solution seems to survive the import/export round-trip nicely.
I'd be curious if other AT users have different strategies.
Are you currently using the local bib numbers in EAD for any sort of linking? We're in the midst of an Aeon implementation and plan to use these local bib system numbers in EAD as a way to access the holdings/item/barcode information that we manage separately in our ILS (Aleph).
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Custer, Mark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I’ve employed the following approach within the AT, which isn’t ideal, but it does let me attach the MARC bib number within the eadheader/filedesc upon import (and even an OCLC number, etc., if that is present in the existing MARC record):
<p>This finding aid was created from a MARC collection-level record.
Within the AT interface, this shows up under the “Finding Aid Data” tab, inside the “Finding Aid Note” field. You can still add additional notes to the resource record (or, additional paragraphs within that same note, at least) , and you’ll always know that the bib number lives at “/ead/eadheader/filedesc/notestmt/note/p/num[@type='local_bib']”
I’d be interested to hear what other AT users are doing, as well.
I'm looking for an appropriate way to encode a bib system number in EAD and found this thread. I think the multiple <unitid> approach that Michele describes is the best approach--one for the collection number and one for the bib system number--but there is one catch. As far as I can tell, Archivists' Toolkit only supports the use of one <unitid> element at the collection level. If you try to import an EAD file with more than one collection level <unitid> element, AT just imports the one without any attributes.
I suppose I could insert the <unitid encodinganalog="001" type="bibsysno"> after exporting EAD from AT, but I'd prefer to find a solution where I could manage both the collection number and bib system number in AT and export them both in EAD without having to post-process the EAD file.
And so I consult the collective wisdom of the EAD list... Any AT users have suggestions?
Archivist for Metadata and Encoding
David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library
Visit our blog "The Devil's Tale": http://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein/
Be our fan on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rbmscl
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Michele R Combs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
We map the 001 field (the BIBID) to the collection-level <unitid> (ead/archdesc/did/unitid) . The definition of unitid seems to support this as the correct choice: “Any alpha-numeric text string that serves as a unique reference point or control number for the described material, such as a lot number, an accession number, a classification number, or an entry number in a bibliography or catalog...the TYPE attribute may be used to indicate the system from which the <unitid> was derived, e.g., accessioning system, record group classification scheme, records retention scheduling system, etc.”
<unitid encodinganalog="001" type=”opac” label="Identification: " countrycode="US" repositorycode="NSyU">148784</unitid>
<unitid> is of course usable at any c0# level, so you could have different ones for fonds, series, etc. at the appropriate level of the description.
Hello, We are currently starting on the digitisation of archives and manuscripts and for the first time will be working with EAD within METS. The standard transformation from MARC to EAD does not incorporate the MARC field 001, which contains the System Control Number/Unique identifier within the catalogue, which we depend on heavily in the digitisation workflow. I was wondering if those of you who are already using EAD could let me know if you include this in your EAD and if so which element and attributes do you use? For example the manuscript collection I am starting with has a System Control Number at Fonds, Series and File level. We were thinking on the lines of placing the System Control Number (vtls004593617) for the Fonds in the element within element using identifier and encodinganalog attributes as follows: The above could also contain the handle to the parent object e.g. Then the element within element for FONDS level record will contain the NRA Code (MARC field 099) However, I notice that the LC have done this differently. Placing handle in identifier in eadid and note regarding Catalogue Record (System Control Number) in a note element within filedesc http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms001004
Catalog Record: http://lccn.loc.gov/mm79011056
For all sub levels Then for all sub levels (Series, File) which have a bibliographic record of placing the System Control Number in the identifier attribute within the element along with encodinganalog attribute which will contain the MARC field number and possibly label attribute e.g. Being relatively new to EAD I was wondering if what we have suggested is ok or whether those of you who have implemented have any other suggestions and better still examples of how you have incorporated LCNs into your EAD. Any guidance / feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Vicky