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

2. 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

3. 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”

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

5. 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Unpublished, grouped with related items, make no sense on own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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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,
Item
Letter to FAA Director, June 12, 1968
Copy of remarks by Goldwater to CCRP, August 23, 1965

9. 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, , n.d.
United States Solicitor General File, , n.d.
Supreme Court File, , n.d.
Miscellany,
Oversize, 1967, 1991”

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. Elements of Description
26 in ISAD (G) (
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)

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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Cataloging Archival Materials

20. MARC 21 Sample

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. EAD Samples
Static:
Conversion on server:
PDF:
In digital library software:
Other implementations
Cheshire:

26. 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

27. 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)

28. 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)

29. 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)

30. A “raw” EAD File

31. 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

34. 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

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

36. Typical XSL file

37. 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

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

39. AIS Demo
Login: guest
Password: guest

40. Break for Questions
Next: Digital Archives Standards and Tools

41. 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

42. 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)

43. Sample of Digital Library/Archive Projects

44. 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

45. 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

47. These are metadata
fields
This is Metadata

48. same thing electronically
Metadata Fields
The metadata itself

49. Now as xml “metadata”
Descriptive and
administrative

50. This is Not Metadata
This is!

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

52. More complete
Not embedded
Relational
Not self-explaining

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

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

55. 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

56. 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

58. Dublin Core Resources http://dublincore.org/

59. Text Encoding Initiative
Encode any text with structural markup, deep semantic markup, or any combination of the two
Section for metadata in <teiHeader>
Typically need xml editor to create, software such as DLXS to display

60. 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

61. “Simple” OAIS Model

62. 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.

63. 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.

64. 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)

66. OAI Example
OAIster:

67. Tools for Digital Library/Archive Projects
CONTENTdm
Very good, support for dublin core, OAI
Con: expensive
Recommendation: Skip it
Greenstone
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

68. Thanks!!!! This powerpoint online at: