Print

Print


Kate,
I think the idea might be that if you are able to describe your
relationships in a robust enough way, you can "mimic" the multi-level
description in a flatter environment.

Consider:

Hierarchical
<a>
  <b>
    <c></c>
  </b>
</a>

Single-level
<a>
descriptive data
<hasChild>b</hasChild>
</a>

<b>
descriptive data
<isChildof> a </isChildof>
<hasChild> c </hasChild>
</b>

<c>
descriptive data
<isChildof> b </isChildof>
</c>

One of the issues is that you start needing tons of tags on each record -
at least one for each record with which that item has a relationship, which
becomes cumbersome. Another way to do this might be to simply assign all
children a "sequence number" which places them in context within their
level. So a series would be a child of a RG/fonds/collection and placed
within that bucket by its sequence number.

Of course, now you need to describe more series/subseries/items
individually.

Now I'm just spitballing here, none of this is settled yet. IIRC, they
specifically tabled discussion on records with multiple items (particularly
serials) because they could not come to a consensus on how BIBFRAME would
handle these items. This is still a big point of contention and an
unresolved issue - but I will double check with people more in the know and
see if they have made any progress on that.

Does that answer your question?
-nc


On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Bowers, Kate A. <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  Simple question, probably with a complex answer, but I really don’t know
> enough about BIBFRAME to even start imagining it:
>
>
>
> Library description is single level.  Archival description is
> multi-level.  How would BIBFRAME accommodate both?
>
>
>
> Kate
>
>
>
> *Kate Bowers*
>
> Collections Services Archivist
>
> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>
> 617.496.2713
>
> voice: (617) 384-7787
>
> fax: (617) 495-8011
>
> web: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:archives
>
> Twitter: @k8_bowers
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Harvard Library  |  Harvard University Archives  |  Pusey Library—Harvard
> Yard, Cambridge, MA 02138    archives.harvard.edu
>
>
>
> [image: signature_huarc-small]
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Connizzo, Nick
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:09 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [EAD] BIBFRAME and archival description (was AV study
> posted)
>
>
>
> Nathan,
>
> I think we certainly still need finding aids - the biggest worry I have in
> the LD world is that we lose the essence of archival theory, which is
> collections (and items) in context. One thing we need to preserve is not
> just the ability to be able to find items, but also to view the
> relationship between the items and their creator. Linked data shouldn't
> take this away, but instead enable tons of additional relational data (to
> other collections, creators, and concepts). I think the place of the
> finding aid in the future should be as *one* access point, instead of as
> the *only* access point.
>
>
>
> I think the issue is not whether we can transform, because obviously we
> have been transforming EAD to MARC for a long time, but I think we'd all
> agree that MARC is not really an ideal way to look at an archival
> collection. The hope is that we can be part of BIBFRAME to break down the
> wall between "traditional" library resource description and archival
> description. Is it possible to have a data structure that works for both? I
> think so.
>
>
>
> -nc
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Nathan Tallman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Connizzo, Nick <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> My personal feeling is that we might need to sunset EAD and move to a
> different description standard that better integrates with linked data, but
> obviously that's a massive effort. EAD always seemed to me to be, frankly,
> the way to electronically re-create the paper finding aid. Maybe that's
> being unfair, but we can do so much more with our data. We need to be
> thinking less "how can I make my finding aids work in a world of linked
> data?" and more "how can I get my data into this network?" The finding aid
> is just one way to do it.
>
>
>
> I've always thought of EAD as describing a finding aid more than
> describing archival content. It's the finding aid itself that describes
> archival content. (EAD3 may be changing this.)
>
>
>
> But what this question gets to is, do we need finding aids? There's been
> research on this topic, with people on both sides. Some think everything
> should be described in a database (pick a level) and we query the database.
>  Personally, I don't think the finding aid is going away. It's the best way
> to describe the complex relationships between creators and their content.
> However, as Nick suggests, I think we'll start to see additional ways to
> get archival description into the linked open data world. I admit that I
> have only superficial knowledge of BIBFRAME, but shouldn't we be able to
> map/transform things, even if it has an intermediate format/schema in
> between? EAD-->MODS-->BIBFRAME/LOD
>
>
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nathan Tallman
>
> Digital Content Strategist
>
> University of Cincinnati
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Nick Connizzo
> Digital Archivist
> Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library
> 2130 H. Street NW, Washington DC 20052
> 202-994-3925
> [log in to unmask]
>



-- 
Nick Connizzo
Digital Archivist
Special Collections Research Center, Gelman Library
2130 H. Street NW, Washington DC 20052
202-994-3925
[log in to unmask]