Print

Print


Megan,

That's a great response, you make many good points. When I read the
original post at avperserve.com, it appears to be a criticism of EAD
implementation and not of EAD as an encoding/structure standard itself.
There's plenty of room in EAD to have detailed item description, just
because it may not happen in one particular archive as part of processing
is not the fault of EAD, but an issue of planning and management of
processing resources.

Of course, it also helps tremendously to have a content management system
where one can go into as much detail as desired for preservation and
digitization. In our case, we use AXAEM which outputs EAD for finding aids
and MARC catalog records from one database.

Gina Strack


-- 
Arrangement & Description
Utah State Archives & Records Service
http://archives.utah.gov
Phone (801) 531-3843
[log in to unmask]

* State Archives office hours are Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.*



On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Megan McShea <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Kate Theimer of ArchivesNext has graciously let me use her blog to respond
> to a post on the blog of AVPreserve.com, an archival audiovisual
> preservation firm in NY. The original post, entitled "Does the Creation of
> EAD Finding Aids Inhibit Archival Activities?" made the argument that
> creating EAD finding aids is a waste of resources for making audiovisual
> archives accessible.
>
> I ignored the post when it went up in May, but when it was highlighted in
> AVPreserve's recent newsletter, I started getting e-mails from colleagues
> who knew about our current CLIR project
> (http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/projects/clir) involving processing and
> AV archives. So I finally took the bait.
>
> Here's my response, in case anyone has an interest:
>
> http://www.archivesnext.com/?p=3617
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> Megan McShea
> Audiovisual Archivist
> Archives of American Art
>