1. The Use of EAD in Archival Based Repositories
Info 662, Dr Park
5/28/2011
James Gross

2. Introduction:
EAD: Developed by the University of California at Berkley in 1993
Used for encoding inventories, guides, indexes, and registries.
Used in special collections in libraries, museums, and archives.
Enhanced to allow for the accessibility of archival resources by institutions.

3. EAD
Utilizes many of the elements from the Dublin Core (DC) element set via the “EAD crosswalk”
Goals of simplicity, flexibility, extensibility, interoperability, and international scope.
No element is mandatory and every element is repeatable

4. User needs requiring the EAD scheme
Ongoing digitization of archival finding aids has increased awareness and requests for information on available collections by users.
Locating and discovering these resources often requires semantic interoperability among differing online collection catalogs.
EAD was developed to help provide a standard for cross-domain information resource description.

5. EAD- 2 main levels:
Primary level: <eadheader> : Contains information about the finding aid.
Secondary level: <archdesc>: Contains information about the collection.

6. EAD Elements
Up to six elements may describe the content of the resource: Coverage, Description, Type, Relation, Subject, and Title.
Up to three elements are concerned with intellectual property: Contributor, Creator, and Publisher.
Up to four elements involve instantiation: Date, Format, Identifier, and Language.

7. Consistency in EAD Consistent usage of <eadheader> elements.
Consistent usage of <archdesc> elements.

8. Project Goals:
Evaluate the application of EAD metadata elements in two disparate archival repositories.
Identify incompleteness, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies in the metadata application.
Reveal examples of semantic interoperability among both archival repositories.

9. Project Questions:
What elements are used most frequently in each repository and across both repositories?
What elements are not used?
What elements produce the highest number of errors?
What elements produce the highest number of inconsistencies?
What are the possible barriers to interoperability across these two repositories?

10. Project Methods
Two EAD based repositories were chosen for their ability to provide readable XML metadata.
Sixty records, thirty from each repository, were selected for evaluation.
Mappings of each repository’s display fields to EAD elements were identified.
Records were examined for metadata completeness, accuracy, consistency, and use of controlled vocabularies.

11. The Repositories:
University of Minnesota Northwest Architectural Archive
University of Texas, Alexander Architectural Archive

12. University of Minnesota, Northwest Architectural Archive:
The archives collects the records of architects, engineers, contractors, landscape architects, and interior designers from a region which includes Minnesota, western Wisconsin, northern Iowa, and the eastern Dakotas.
Every type of document generated by these individuals and firms is collected: drawings of all kinds, specifications, job files, and photographs are chiefly sought. The collections span nearly 130 years of work.
LC Authority files used for controlled vocabularies
Purpose of collection is preservation and access for education. There is no local metadata guideline available.

13. University of Texas, Alexander Architectural Archive
Contains documentation for historic and architecturally important projects in and out of the state, focusing primarily on work by Texas architects.
No local guidelines available.
LC authority files used for controlled vocabularies.
Purpose of collection is preservation and access for education.

14. Dublin Core To EAD crosswalk utilized:
<eadheader>
<archdesc>
Coverage
<geoname><unitdate>
Description
<abstract>
Type
Subject
<controlaccess><subject>
Title
<titleproper>
<unittitle>
Creator
<author>
<persname>,<corpname>
Contributor
Publisher
<publisher>
<repository>
Date
<publicationstmt> <date>
<unitdate>
Format
XML
Identifier
<eadid>
<unitid>
Language
<language>

15. Usage of EAD <eadheader> Level Elements
EAD Element
University of Minnesota Archive (N=30)
University of Texas Archive (N=30)
Title 30
Contributor
Publisher
Date
Language
Format
Identifier
Creator
Type 10
Description

16. Usage of some EAD <archdesc> level elements:
MARC#
University of Minnesota Archive: (N=30)
University of Texas Archive: (N=30)
<eadheader>level:
Creation 30
<archdesc> level:
Accessrestrict
506
userestrict
540
prefercite
524
processinfo
583
acqinfo
541 14 2
arrangement
351
bioghist
545
otherfindingaid
555 29 5

17. EAD Elements Most Populated in each repository:
University of Minnesota archive: Identifier, title, date, contributor, creator, description, format, language, subject. (100% usage)
other elements: processinfo, prefercite, userrestrict, accessrestrict, bioghist, (100% usage)
University of Texas archive: Identifier, title, date, contributor, creator, description, format, language, processinfo, prefercite, userrestrict, accessrestrict, (100%)
other elements: processinfo, prefercite, userrestrict, accessrestrict, bioghist. (100% usage) 17

18. EAD Elements most populated overall:
Identifier
Date
Title
Publisher (repository)
Format
Language

19. EAD Elements Least Populated Overall:
Subject
Arrangement
Otherfindingaid
Acqinfo
Processinfo
relatedinfo
(several are locally added elements)

20. EAD metadata accuracy:
Title is the primary element by which users access collection/finding aid catalog entries.
University of Minnesota archive: excellent usage of this element.
University of Texas archive: Poor usage. Fully 50% of the accessed XML records could not be accessed due to html errors. Of the 30 records retrieved, a number of them had excessive wording in the titles.

21. Usage of controlled vocabulary terms & format:
University of Minnesota archive used consistent metadata coding for all records. The title element was used effectively.
University of Texas archive data appeared to be inconsistent regarding numerous tags. Title element not succinct. Subject tag omitted quite often.

22. Barriers to Interoperability:
Both archives should implement and place online a copy of their local metadata guidelines.
The University of Texas archive has a serious issue with their XML data which should be addressed immediately. The catalog entries are visible but 50% of the metadata files are corrupt.
The University of Texas archive has a large number of catalog entries (roughly 40-50%) which are missing basic tags, such as subject.

23. Conclusions: (Part 1)
EAD has the potential to be an effective metadata scheme for archival based repositories. Most elements in the <eadheader> were consistently and correctly populated by both repositories.
Both archives should implement and place online a copy of their local metadata guidelines.

24. Conclusions: (Part 2)
Selective implementation of the creator field (University of Texas archive) suggests a degree of uncertainty regarding tag usage by the user. This is an issue of semantic ambiguity.
The selective usage of creator tags (University of Texas archive), highlights the need for local guidelines and the necessity to re-assign data input from archive volunteers to experienced and paid staff.

25. Future of EAD
A limited number of EAD institutions (with visible XML) were available for this report.
As a service to researchers, more archives should implement EAD metadata schemes.
The creation of an online searchable catalog would bring attention to the collections and enhance institutional interaction with researchers.
Metadata creation by untrained staff are major obstacles to effective implementation of the EAD scheme. Therefore, metadata input should only be handled by experienced staff.