Archives, Digital Archives and Encoded Archival Description Chris Prom Assistant University Archivist University of Illinois Mortenson Visiting Scholars Tech Training April 19, 2006

Intro Overview of Archives, Arrangement and Description Review Standards and Tools related to Archival Description Review Standards and Tools for providing access to digital archival materials Lots of interaction

Archives Background Archives: Organized non-current “records”; generated by institutions Manuscripts: non-current “papers”; generated by individuals or families Preserved because of ‘enduring’ value Not necessarily ‘permanent value’ Both generally referred to as “collections”

The Archival Mission Identify, preserve, make available records and papers From Gregory Hunter, Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives

Libraries Archives Nature Creator Method of Creation How Received Published, discrete, make sense on own, multiple copies Unpublished, grouped with related items, make no sense on own Creator Many One parent organization Method of Creation Each created separately Organically produced as part of normal business or life How Received Selected as items Appraised as groups How Arranged By subject classification Provenance and original order (structure and function) How described By item In aggregate (record group, series, collection) Where described Built into item itself (provided title, author, CIP data), in catalog Prepared by archivist (e.g. supplied title) in ‘finding aids, guides, inventories, databases How accessed Items circulate No circulation Based on chart in Hunter, Developing. . . p. 7

Archival Appraisal 101 Process of determining ‘value’ Done over aggregates not items Primary: operational, legal, fiscal, administrative Secondary: Historical or ‘archival’ value Types of archival value Evidential: documents organization and functioning of organization Informational: sheds light on people, events, things aside from organization Credit: Hunter, p. 51

Archival Arrangement 101 Provenance Original order Records from one creator must not be intermingled with those from another NOT by subject Original order Maintain records in order placed by creator Five “levels” of arrangement Repository Record group/subgroup (organizationally related group) Record series (set of files or documents maintained as a unit) File (folder, binder, packs for convenient use) Item (one document, letter, etc)

Levels of Arrangement: Examples Repository University Archives Special Collections Record Group College of Engineering Champaign County Republican Party Series Dean’s Office Correspondence Files Speaker’s Committee File File Unit Federal Aviation Administration Barry Goldwater, 1960-70 Item Letter to FAA Director, June 12, 1968 Copy of remarks by Goldwater to CCRP, August 23, 1965

Arrangement of “Papers” The mixed repository model Term “series” in papers often refers to internal divisions in a collection. Thurgood Marshall Papers: “The collection is arranged in five series: United States Court of Appeals File, 1957-1965, n.d. United States Solicitor General File, 1965-1967, n.d. Supreme Court File, 1967-1991, n.d. Miscellany, 1949-1963 Oversize, 1967, 1991”

Description of Archives Establish administrative control over archival materials Locate collections Identify their source, creators (chain of custody) Outline contents Establish intellectual control General nature of repository General contents of collection Detailed information on specific collections Summarize information across several collections Important for both authentication and access Internal vs. Public finding aids

Principles of Description* “Multilevel Description” Proceed from general to specific Provide information relevent to the level of description Link each level of description to next higher unit of description Do not repeat information, provide it only at highest appropriate level * Summarized from ISAD(G) General International Standard Archival Description

Finding Aid Basic Access Tool is the “Finding Aid” also known as ‘inventory’ or ‘register’. Prefatory material Introduction Biographical sketch/agency history Scope and content note Series description (organization) Container Listing Index (less used now with electronic finding aids)

Elements of Description 26 in ISAD (G) (www.ica.org/biblio/cds/isad_g_2e.pdf) Identity Reference code, title, dates, level of description Context Name of creator, biographical or admin history, source of materials Content/Structure Scope/content, appraisal information, arrangement Conditions of Access/Use Allied Materials (copies, originals, related) Notes Description Control (author of description, revisions)

Finding Aid Examples Reston Papers and Third Armored Division Assn (bring along) American Crystal Sugar Co. Thurgood Marshall Papers

Questions? Next: Overview of standards and tools for description of paper and electronic materials, and tools for access to electronic collections.

Establishing a good descriptive system Takes planning, awareness of resources Deciding on ‘platform’ or computers should be LAST step Better to describe all materials at high level than put all effort into one collection Beware tendency to do lower levels of description before higher levels Inventory MUST be the key Use a content standard

Describing Archives: A Content Standard Provides rules/advice about the quality and structure of informational content 8 principles What to put in the 26 elements recommended by ISAD (G) Rules for describing creators and forms of names Complement to AACR2 Provides mapping to appropriate data structure standards

MARC21 Advantages: Can use regular library software, provides integrated access with non-archival materials Disadvantages: Can undermine provenance, relationship to other materials may be lost Recommendation: USE MARC Cataloging as first step in PUBLIC finding aids

Cataloging Archival Materials

MARC 21 Sample

Typical Fields for Cataloging Archival Materials Personal Name 100 Corporate Name 110 Title 245a,b Inclusive Dates 245f Physical Description (volume) 300 Arrangement/Organization 351 Biographical/Historical Note 545 Scope/content note 520 Restrictions on Access 506 Terms of Use 540 Provenance 561 Subject added entry 650s Personal name added entry 700 Personal name as subject 600 Corporate name as subject 610 Link to finding aid or digital collection 856

Word-Processed Finding Aids Advantages: Easy to create, maintain Disadvantages: Not in standard format, cannot exchange with others, lack of coded fields Recommendation: Very useful for most institutions. Can be published to Internet via PDF

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Data structure standards for descriptions of manuscripts or archives-->finding aids At any level of granularity Typically collection level sgml and xml versions of DTD <dao> tag for linking to archival surrogates

EAD Advantages: Best interoperability and data exchange, easier to implement with others (consortia) Disadvantages: Tool development still weak, steep learning curve. Recommendation: If you have good technical skills, and a basic archival program is in place, and resources are available, implement it

EAD Samples Static: http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ead/ua/1505023/1505023f.html http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/e/edwards.htm Conversion on server: http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/e/edwards.xml PDF: http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/mole/e/edwards.pdf In digital library software: http://www.umich.edu/~bhl/EAD/index.html http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ Other implementations Cheshire: http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/

EAD Structure 1 XML: perfect way to implement principles of ‘multi-level description many elements optional most repeatable at any level, nesting can vary Normalization possible, but not common for most finding aids

EAD Structure 2 <eadheader> (information about EAD File) <eadid> unique id <filedesc> <titlestmt> <publicationstmt> <notestmt> <profiledesc> <creation> <langusage> <revisiondesc> <frontmatter> (deprecated element, repeats info for display) <archdesc> (information about materials being described)

Common Top-Level <archdesc> Elements <did> (descriptive id) <origination> <unitititle> <unitdate> <physdesc> <abstract> <repository> <unitid> <bioghist> <scopecontent> <arrangement> <controlaccess> <accessrestrict> Other elements include <accruals>, <acqinfo>, <altformatavail>, <appraisal>, <custodhist>, <prefercite>, <processinfo>, <userestrict>, <relatedencoding>, <separatedmaterial>, <otherfindaid>, <bibliography>, <odd> Linking elements: some based on XLink spec, suite of linking elements includes <archref> ,<extref>, <daogrp> All of above elements are repeatable for components of the collection, at any level in the <dsc> (description of subordinate components)

Description of Subordinate Components nested components (i.e. <c> [unnumbered] or <c01>, <c02>, etc. [numbered]) represent intellectual structure of materials being described <container> elements (within each level) represent physical arrangement Maximum depth of 12 levels (not a good idea to use all of them) All elements available in archdesc top level also available in any component (typically not used)

A “raw” EAD File http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/ead/xml/2620016.xml

EAD Tools: Creation Current options Text editors (cheap, no built in validation, transformation or unicode support) Notetab Word Processors XML editors (graphical view, built in validation, transformation, unicode support, FOP; tend to be buggy) XML Spy oXygen XMetal (not recommended) EAD Cookbook highly recommended, templates for Notetab, oXygen

EAD Tools: Display Most common to transform to HTML Static via xsl stylesheet on command line or in authoring software, then upload files to server Client-side via link to css or xsl (dicey) Server side transform engine (saxon, msxml, xalan, etc) via servlets Dynamic (searchable) dlxs findaid class

XML Transformations XSL PARSER XSLT1 HTML1 XSLT2 HTML2 XML XSLT3 HTML3 XSL-FO PDF

Typical XSL file

Collection Management Tools Advantages: Software tailored for Archives, easy data entry Disadvantages: Few options currently exist. May be difficult to ‘migrate’ forward at a future point. Also not automatically online

“CMT” Examples Past Perfect http://www.museumsoftware.com/ Archivist Toolkit http://www.archiviststoolkit.org/ UIUC “Archival Information System”

AIS Demo www.chrisprom.com/ais/admin Login: guest Password: guest

Break for Questions Next: Digital Archives Standards and Tools

Digital Libraries or Archives? Nature Published items, each item discrete, make sense on own, multiple copies Unpublished, grouped with related items, make no sense on own Creator Many different One parent organization Method of Creation Each created separately Organically produced as part of normal business or life How Received Selected as items Appraised as groups How Arranged By subject classification Provenance and original order (structure and function) How described By item In aggregate (record group, series, collection) Where described Built into item itself (provided title, author, CIP data), in catalog Prepared by archivist (e.g. supplied title) in ‘finding aids, guides, inventories, databases How accessed Items circulate No circulation

The “on a horse” problem Best systems mix archival and library approaches Complete item description AND Full context AND Link to complete collection (including description of off line items)

Sample of Digital Library/Archive Projects http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ http://www.ohiomemory.org/index.html http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/ http://www.marquette.edu/library/MUDC/ http://www.library.uiuc.edu/archives/coll/dl/bot/bot.html

Digital Library/Archive Standards Background on Metadata For images: Dublin Core For texts: TEI For information exchange: METS, OAI For Digital Preservation: OAIS Reference Model

Archivists and Metadata Structured data about an information resource Metadata by itself doesn’t “do” anything. Metadata schemas provide “buckets” for information about resources. Metadata needs to be interpreted by a system or user. Metadata provides context to help machines (and more importantly people) interpret content People usually talk about applying metadata to digital materials, but. . . . . .

These are metadata fields This is Metadata

same thing electronically Metadata Fields The metadata itself

Now as xml “metadata” Descriptive and administrative

This is Not Metadata This is!

Metadata is about context and relationships This is metadata, but. . . Incomplete Embedded in object Not self- explaining

More complete Not embedded Relational Not self-explaining

Metadata and Code and human user beginning to do something with metadata But. . . Not self-explaining Can’t be exchanged

now as xml metadata Non-embedded Self-explaining But relationships lost

Dublin Core Developed in 1995 for authors to describe own web resources Very simple, only 15 broad categories in the “simple” version Advantages: commonly held set of elements is easy to understand, built into many current tools Disadvantages: loss of specificity

The 15 elements: Content Intellectual Prop Instantiation Coverage Description Title Type Relation Source Subject Audience Intellectual Prop Contributor Creator Publisher Rights Instantiation Date Format Identifier Language

Dublin Core Resources http://dublincore.org/ http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcdot/

Text Encoding Initiative Encode any text with structural markup, deep semantic markup, or any combination of the two Section for metadata in <teiHeader> http://www.tei-c.org/ Typically need xml editor to create, software such as DLXS to display http://media.library.uiuc.edu/projects/bot/xml/index.htm

OAIS Reference Model Based on Archival Principles Three parties involved with digital information Producers; SIP: Submission Information Packet Managers; AIP: Archival Information Packet Consumers (Users); DIP: Dissemination Information Packet http://www.library.cornell.edu/iris/tutorial/dpm/foundation/oais/index.html

“Simple” OAIS Model

METS Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard Standard for encoding descriptive, administrative, and structural metadata regarding objects within a digital library Outgrowth of Making of American II project Provides metadata for compound text and image-based works Need purpose-built software to display and navigate.

METS: Why bother? Based on the OAIS Reference Model. It Includes support for: Submission Information Packet Archival Information Packet Dissemination Information Packet Not only for transfer and archival management, but for giving access to, navigating an object It “plays well” with other systems (EAD, MARC, TEI, VRA etc) Software will be coming (support in Archivist Toolkit, NDIIPP projects) BUT. . . . It is currently very complex.

OAI-PMH Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting Not cross-database searching metadata harvesting Data Providers (expose collections in a common syntax) Service Providers (use metadata harvested via the OAI-PMH as a basis for building value-added services)

OAI Example OAIster: http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/

Tools for Digital Library/Archive Projects CONTENTdm http://www.dimema.com/ Very good, support for dublin core, OAI Con: expensive Recommendation: Skip it Greenstone http://www.greenstone.org/cgi-bin/library Pros: Free, (relatively) easy to configure, low hardware requirements, can run on internet or publish to CD, supported by UNESCO, targeted at developing nations Con: tends to be ‘item-centric’, difficult to aggregate materials Recommendation: Use it, but as part of large descriptive system

Thanks!!!! This powerpoint online at: http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ahx/workpap