1. Moving Metadata for Unique Content Through Infrastructure
Jennifer Ward, UW | Ann Lally, UW
Rose Krause, EWU | Eva Guggemos, Pacific
Elizabeth Nielsen, OSU | Jodi Allison-Bunnell, Alliance

2. Topics Shared metadata standards and challenges
Archival collection metadata moving through systems
Archival collection management and ArchivesSpace
Unique materials in Alma and Primo, legacy metadata, systems and structure
The systems we have now, and the systems we will have in the future

3. Shared Metadata Standards and Challenges
Jodi’s section starts here

4. Everyone Has These Problems
Metadata created for specific systems or views
Very Special Snowflake Metadata
Infrastructure is recent
Search engines vs. destination sites

5. Metadata Flowchart:
Basic flow of records through three kinds of metadata platforms

6. Metadata Flowchart:
It’s more complicated: We also move metadata between platform types

7. Metadata Flowchart:
Example of record creation & harvesting for Digital Objects

8. Metadata Flowchart:
Example of record creation & harvesting for Archival Collections

9. Archival Collection Metadata Moving through Systems
Ann and Elizabeth N’s section starts here

10. Metadata Flowchart:
Example of record creation & harvesting for Archival Collections

16. Metadata Flowchart:
Example of record creation & harvesting for Archival Collections

21. Metadata Flowchart:
Example of record creation & harvesting for Archival Collections

22. OCLC MARC record
CONTENTdm OAI-PMH record

23. CONTENTdm record
DPLA record

24. Archival Collection Management Systems (& ArchivesSpace!)
Eva’s section starts here

25. Archival Collection Metadata begins here

26. What does an Archival Management System do?
Creates multi-level, multi-component records
Allows relational groupings of records (i.e. “A, B and C are all a part of D”)
Local name & subject authority management
Tracks donors, terms, rights, restrictions and processing tasks
Exports metadata in many XML formats

27. Coming Soon: ArchivesSpace

28. Towards an Archival “Master Record”
( +API harvesting?)

29. Unique Materials in Primo and Alma, Legacy Metadata, and Systems
Rose’s section starts here
What I’m going to show you are some illustrations of the unique needs of unique collections in the Alma/Primo environment, the impact of legacy metadata, and what CCD and the Alliance is doing in FY17 to help address some of these issues.

30. Issues What is it? Descriptive practices and legacy metadata Donors
Restrictions and availability
Other issues not covered here:
Aboutness and facets
Here are some issues I’ll touch on. I want to emphasize that I’m not trying to point fingers here. So much of this has to do with using a library system for archival and special collection materials, which have their own descriptive practices that don’t always carry over in a 1 to 1 relationship.

31. What is it? Electronic or physical?
This is a screenshot from OSU Primo. The “online access” is the EAD finding aid, not digitized content.

32. Here is an example of a collection with an EAD finding aid in EWU Primo.

33. Descriptive practices
Legacy metadata: example of records created under APPM/AACR2 and not yet brought into compliance with DACS

34. Improvements in how local fields display has brought benefits and some weirdness. Norm Rules WG has Alliance-wide content to keep in mind, not just individual institution’s materials.
Rare books example where local fields display data that may be confusing to patrons: this is the view from the EWU Primo; it appears that we have a book that was formerly owned by Virginia Woolf. Wow!

35. Looks like UO also has a book formerly owned by Woolf.

36. Back in the EWU Primo, clicking on the heading for author/creator Virginia Woolf – former owner results in three records in EWU’s collection. It looks like we have items in open stacks that have significant provenance.

37. In reality, what’s happening here is that the heading “Virginia Woolf , former owner” is specific to the WSU MASC copy. Here is the view in WSU’s Primo which includes their local note re: the MASC copy, which does not appear in the other Primos

38. Local Fields in Alma/Primo
“Include the name (or abbreviation) of your institution in local headings whenever possible and appropriate. This will inform patrons from other Alliance libraries which copy of a resource, or to which institution's collection, the heading or note applies. In the current catalog environment patrons are likely to see bibliographic information from multiple libraries.”
The Local Fields group identified this issue in their best practices document.

39. Donors
Another issue that is significant for unique materials is the need for donor acknowledgements. Here’s an example from Western’s Primo; notice you need to drill down to the “Details” area to get to the donation information.

40. Here’s a screenshot of the “Virtual Bookplate” display that was recently implemented Alliance-wide and that you can enable in your Primo.

41. Access
Access information is not very granular in Primo, which poses problems for materials in archives & special collections, which have different access parameters than library materials.
For example, restrictions on who can access the content, such as the example here of student records. The user only sees the restriction once he/she opens the Details tab; if the user never goes that far, it looks like these are just “Available”.

42. Another access issue has to do with different hours and locations for archive and special collection departments. The content may not be “available” in the same way as the main library collection.

43. Factors Who can / should / does X? Communication Teams
Individual institutions
Capacity
In identifying and addressing some of the issues I’ve touched on, there are several factors that being part of the Alliance make more complex.
Communication issues
What should be dealt with at institutional, Alliance, and EL levels?
Who to contact with issues? Your institution? Alliance? Ex Libris?
Communication across institution’s departments
Capacity: the SILS migration and learning to work in that environment has taken time
This is new territory for all of us

44. FY17 Actions
CCD FY17 Goal
Facilitate a coordinated approach to discovery of unique collections in the Alliance Primo environment
Norm Rules Advisory Group presence
advisory-group
The CCD has identified at least two actions in the next fiscal year that we hope will help us move forward with unique materials in the SILS.
CCD FY17 Goal:
Goal: Facilitate a coordinated approach to discovery of unique collections in the Alliance Primo environment
Study and characterize the issues with unique collections in the SILS, practices that work well, identify issues that can be dealt with organization-wide, and develop organization-wide concept of how unique collections could appear, and summarize in a statement of principles
Streamline workflows between Archives West and the SILS
Norm Rules Advisory Group to include member(s) from archives and special collections community

45. Systems Now and Future
Jennifer’s section starts here

46. Systems over the last 15 years
Backend (archival and collection management) systems:
Paper → Gencat → III → Archivist’s Toolkit → ArchivesSpace
OCLC, ILS (collection-level records)
Discovery systems:
HTML → MS IIS ISAPI → DLXS → XTF + Archives West + ILS/Discovery (WorldCat Local, Primo)+ Google + DPLA + _________
Not including other DAM repositories (contentDM, institutional repositories, data repositories, etc.) that intersect with these systems in various ways.
These are the handful of systems we’ve used at UW over the last 15 years or so to manage and enable discovery of our archival and special collections. We’re still cleaning up data from the gencat -> III move!
In terms of numbers, we currently have about 14,000 accession records and 6,500 collection records
Most of the important collection information (shelving location, restrictions, etc.) are in the AT accession records, and this is what special collections staff use mostly for retrieval and management. The collection-level records are mainly just placeholders to aid in discovery.

47. Challenges
Using a library system for archival and special collections materials
A very small fish in a very small pond
Library technology market is small and shrinking every year, at a time when we’re relying on systems more to manage and share our digital collections
System migrations
Inevitable data loss/munging and/or other implementation issues

48. One approach Plan for eventual system changes and migrations.
Mindset: everything you do is building a “university of a thousand years”
Treat your metadata, digital objects, etc. accordingly
Ensure the metadata you want to preserve is in a system that will endure
i.e., catalog in OCLC rather than pipe to Primo
Plan for system changes and migrations: KIS(s)!! The more complex your current systems, the more complex and troublesome the migration
From the slide
OCLC vs piping conversation. Locally we decided that the chances were good that OCLC was going to be around for the long haul and made a conscious decision to continue cataloging collection level records there rather than pipe them to Primo from another system.
HOWEVER, this leads to a consortial challenge that we’ll eventually have to sort out when Archives West records are piped into Primo: duplicate-looking records
from OCLC + Archives West in the discovery layer. Because the data is coming from two very different and separate sources (Alma, for the OCLC-based records
and a Primo pipe), there’s no sane way to dedupe what’s being presented to users.

49. Somewhat random thoughts
If you care about long-term accessibility of metadata, it must be entered into a field that can be migrated.
Metadata created to fit specific systems or views = BAD.
Why change adherence to standards to fit bad system design?
Best case: that data is lost during the next migration. Worst case: it munges the data that you do want to carry forward.
If long-term accessibility of metadata isn’t a goal, why bother entering it in the first place?
What ever fields you use to store data MUST BE migratable. Not all fields in all systems are.

50. Future-proofing your metadata (as best we can)
Before customizing the system to meet current needs, think about how the data might be handled in future systems.
If it’s critically important to keep, why is it going into an exception-driven field/process?
Document exceptions and outliers
Knowledge transfer: within your department and institution
Don’t overlook the current wave of retirements and the need to document their knowledge for the future.

51. Discussion Questions
How people are working across areas of their libraries (or not); what are the advantages? Barriers?
Is there expertise or other resources (skills, tools, etc) that exist, or are lacking, that could be drawn on or bolstered at the organizational level?
What are we willing to give up in order to do things the same and to standards? What are the things that are not negotiable and that we will never change?
What happens in the long term if we proceed with customization without changing?

52. Takeaways
Metadata for unique materials needs to be able to move between systems in the present
We need different and integrated systems; one size does not fit all (well)
The notion of a master record; how it moves downstream; where corrections need to be made to be systemically useful
What we create will need to function in the systems of the future
Responsibility for the future (in terms of migrations, outcomes) and comfort with uncertainty