2016-02-18 Meeting notes ADWG
Date
Attendees
- Daniela O Lozano
- Mielke, Stephen C
- Amy Armstrong
- Carla Alvarez
- @Tim (GRA at Architecture Library)
- Beth Dodd
- Stephanie Malmros
- Jennifer R Hecker
Agenda
- Welcome - Introductions
- Housekeeping
- February Presentation: Alexis Antracoli, Archivist, Mudd Library, Princeton University (see notes from her interview with WebTex below)
- Jot down your questions for Alexis regarding the Princeton Finding Aid project: http://findingaids.princeton.edu/
- ACMS Update[name]
- Round Robin Reports
- Alexis's interview with TARO's WebTex subcommittee:
Please describe all the different tools and technologies that make up your current descriptive environment? Why were these particular tools chosen? What other options did the Princeton team evaluate?
What was your process of evaluation?
Please describe the adoption/migration to your current archival collection management system? Did you encounter any challenges in the adoption/ migration process? Can you discuss your data clean-up workflows?
How the site works/technologies that contribute to collection management and public access:
they are currently in the process of evaluating the current site to still if it still serves their needs
they are already looking at the next iteration of the finding aid site (follow up: what are they currently considering)
the site you see is a custom built site by their systems department; they evaluated existing publishing platforms and dlxs but decided no
they do not have an integrated collections management and front end system; the site currently just publishes the collection description
the backend of the site involves several technologies and steps because they do alot of extra things/enhancement to their ead to provide the functionality people se on the site (sorting by date and title or linking digitized material to the finding aid site)
mudd currently uses AT and they manage their accessions data there; they do not use it as a database of record for anything else that they do (no locations, no finding aids); the really only use it for accessions
they do share this stack of technologies with other libraries on campus but they may have a different process or workflow manuscripts division)
MUDD Process:
Everything was already in EAD
when a collection comes in, they try and get as much descriptive info up front with date to make the process faster
accession record created in AT (an authoring tool for collection level information - but may change the EAD later, not storing master EAD)
Export EAD from at; if a collection came with description like a box list, spreadsheet) they have an xslt that they use to take the transcript/list data to transform the list into a EAD inventory
Once the finding aid is created, they run it through a “normalizer script” that (does a bunch of things to clean up the data):
normalizes dates
strips label attributes and <p> elements
adds unique component ids (if you go to the URL for a given level of description within a finding aid, you’ll see the various components have unique ids)
this serves to create an id that never changes even if physical items are moved in a box - the unique id is also the basis for relating digital objects to specific components - this component id becomes p
They validate the record - they have a looser and a stricter schema
Once errors are cleaned up, they commit the master EAD to SVN version control system and SVN is used as a the database for the finding aid site - additions are updated and added nightly; this is the master record
They also have a test site to upload EAD and preview it before they publish the EAD
For the test site, they upload to an eXist database - so it’s in there somewhere
Systems Team - John Ellis, Sean Stroup (decision and versions of technologies, implementation) - they would be able to tell us exactly how these different tools are talking to one another
they do have a princeton archival collection working group to discuss workflow standardization but
mudd uses less ACms functions because they get much more info when it comes in the door; they have donations
manuscripts division uses AT/ACMS differently because they purchase collections and create more from scratch
collection description is done independently among repositories on campus
Looking at the second round improvement:
ADWG subcommittees (because this group is big and each can carve out their tasks)
UX
Digital Objects/Born digital - they are a hydra partner now so this subcommittee will be considering that in the context of collection description
Authority control/SNAC/EAC-CPF
Data modeling - moving away from EAD to their own data model; looking at the article on the EU Sendari (sp?) Project, LOD
UI
ArchivesSpace task force
Discussion items
Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|
Discussion of Princeton's Finding aid system | Amy, Beth, Esther, Paloma |
|
Discussion of Briscoe Center public service moving to the Benson | Stephanie Malmros, Carla, Amy, Esther, Beth |
|
Skype call with Alexis Antracoli, Archivist, Mudd Library, Princeton University | Alexis, Paloma |
|
Post skype discussion | Paloma, Jennifer, Beth |
|
Welcome to the University Wiki Service! Please use your IID (yourEID@eid.utexas.edu) when prompted for your email address during login or click here to enter your EID. If you are experiencing any issues loading content on pages, please try these steps to clear your browser cache.