1311 Article Review

Article Review: “Archives Described at Collection Level” by Meg Sweet and David Thomas

Archives deal with many problems, but one of the most important issues facing archivists today is how to provide the best access to users while continuing to follow the tenants of archival theory – mainly provenance and context. In their article “Archives Described at Collection Level” (2000), Meg Sweet and David Thomas describe these difficulties, specifically dealing with current technologies such as the Internet and Encoded Archival Description (EAD). They do this by comparing descriptions based on creators to those based on subject. Their main argument is that while collection level description is ideal for some users it is not useful for all users, therefore archivist should try to describe at multiple levels that will be helpful for more users (p.2). For example, family historians are mainly concerned with specific names and although they make up a large proportion of archival users, most archivists do not create searching tools, such as finding aids, with lists of names for them (p.2) By creating various finding aids, archivists would be accommodating both the user and archival theories, because creating a finding aid does not require an archivist to take the actual materials out of their order or context.

Encoded Archival Description

The purpose of EAD is to expand on pre-existing cataloguing systems and make them available to more users as well as link databases from various archives and libraries together (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html). Proponents of EAD argue that its popularity among archivists is due to “it [being] specifically designed for multi-level archival description” and because it is compatible with the General International Standards for Archival Description(ISAD(G)) (p.3).

While EAD is an important step forward for archivists, like many people, Sweet and Thomas only promote the beneficiary aspects of EAD. It is important to note that there have been some major problems concerning its implementation. Studies in recent years have found that even though finding aids have become more standardised EAD interfaces used on-line are not consistent and are confusing for users (Yakel, 2004, p.75). Researchers have also found that even though users find some EAD finding aids confusing, they prefer those that follow design guidelines (Duff, Stoyanova, 1998, p.65). It seems that the problem is not with the EAD interface itself, but the administrators who are using it to create finding aids. In order to fix this problem it is necessary for more educational programmes to be provided to archivists so that EAD is used properly. If this does not happen, the whole purpose of EAD (to provide access to more people) will not be achieved. While the solution seems simple, due to financial constraints many archival institutions have neither the time nor the money to implement such programmes.

Resources

An important aspect of Sweet and Thomas article was their inclusion of the problem all archives face—a lack of resources (p.4). Whether it be time, money or staff, most archives do not have enough resources and must to decide how to prioritise. How they do this “may be determined strictly chronologically or may be decided by such factors as importance, user demand or particular staff skills available” (p.4). While most organisations face a lack of resources the specific problem archivists face is how to provide access to documents while continuing to maintain the context of the documents. This issue has become even more prevalent with the advent of the Internet and archival websites. Often, due to a lack of resources, archives will only digitise items that are requested frequently by patrons. This is useful in terms of preservation, but not for provenance and context. For example, when photographs are digitised, often they are organised by region rather than who donated them or in the original order in which they were created. Even though this makes sense in terms of subject, the relationship the photos have to other photos and their creator is lost. This may not seem problematic since they are organised in a better way for access, but it is because archives are concerned with record in relation to their creator, not subject.

Lack of Modern Standards

Sweet and Thomas write that the rules and standards for description, such as ISAD(G), were created in a paper based context rather than the automated one archivist currently must contend with. For this reason, they argue that many of the standards that have been implemented are no longer adequate. They write “What of the possibility of an isolated ‘hit’ in response to a particular search? How does the end user make sense of the hit? Do we need brand new rules of archival description for an automated environment, with a global, and largely unknown audience?”(p.4).

The authors’ overall felling is that the already existing standards are still relevant, but only as a starting point; they must be adjusted to suit the current electronic use. It will not only help existing users, but those who have previously be unable to access archival resources due to geographical location (p.4). Even though Sweet and Thomas have been thorough in their argument for modernised standards, they failed to mention the change in the users themselves. In recent decades there has been a surge in the number of genealogists using archives, but the current finding aids were created for academic researchers, particularly historians. In their article “Where Is the List With All of the Names? Information Seeking Behaviour of Genealogists” (2003), Duff and Johnson argue that finding aids need to be changed to reflect the change in user (p.94).

Overall this article dealt very well with the current issues archivists face with electronic resources such as the Internet—mainly, how to maintain context while providing the best access for users.








References:


Development of the Encoded Archival Description DTD. (2002). In Official EAD version 2002 website. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html

Duff, W. Johnson, C. (2003).Where Is the List with All the Names? Information-Seeking Behavior of Genealogists. (2003). American Archivist, 66, 79-95.

Duff, W., Stoyanova, P. (1998). Transforming the Crazy Quilt: Archival Displays
From a Users’ Point of View. Archivaria, 45, 44-79.

Sweet, M, Thomas, D. (2000), Archives Described at Collection Level. D-Lib Magazine, 6(9), 1-5.

Yakel, E. (2004). Encoded Archival Description: Are Finding Aids Boundary Spannersor Barriers for Users? Journal of Archival Organisation, 2, 63-77.

Project Profile

ENCODED ARCHIVAL DESCRITPTION (EAD) PROJECT


Due to the popularity of the internet and its ability to give access to many users, libraries and archives alike have started to look at various ways in which they can provide information to the greatest number of users. While there have been many projects that have had varying success, the purpose of this overview is to focus on Encoded Archival Description (EAD) which was spearheaded by Daniel Pitti and the University of California, Berkeley, Library in 1993.

The purpose of the EAD project was to expand on pre-existing cataloguing systems and make them available to more users as well as link databases from various archives and libraries together. (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html) While the current version of EAD uses both XML (Extensible Markup Language) and SGML (Standard Generalised Markup Language), initially it only used the latter. The creators felt that SGML would be best for introducing the concept of a document type definition (DTD). Since archival finding aids are similar in structure it was decided that they would form their own class of documents and “SGML markup tags [were] available for encoding the parts of documents in a similar class.” (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html).

When EAD DTD was being created, finding aids were being forwarded to Pitti by various archivists to be analysed. After his analysis Pitti found that even though finding aids did vary on the surface, they had numerous structural similarities that could be used to create a model finding aid. Pitti circulated the model to archivists who would later join The EAD Working Group which also consisted of manuscript librarians and a SGML technician in order to create an Encoded Archival Description that was to be implemented (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html).
After many revisions, in February 1996 an early model of EAD DTD, known as an alpha version, was released and made available through the University of Berkeley and Library of Congress websites. The creators hoped that providing it electronically would entice more archivists to try it as well as provide communication so that archivists could discuss the various problems they found when using the alpha version (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html).
In October 1996, a beta version was released and guidelines were released in December. The EAD Working Group then released version 1.0 in 1998. They decided to wait to release this version until 1998 so files could “remain stable to permit implementation and full testing by EAD Working Group members and participating institutions” (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html).
Since the implementation of the beta version of EAD many organisations, including the Society of American Archivists (SAA) have provided workshops for archivists and librarians in order to get more institutions to use EAD and to provide assistance to those who are unfamiliar with computer software (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html)

In 2002 an updated version which uses XML was introduced. This version was necessitated by the fact that there were some structural problems with version 1.0, but mainly due to the fact that the number of users had dramatically increased, not just in the United States, but around the world. This required the creators of EAD to remain compatible with the provisions of the General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)), not just standards in the United States. (http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddesgn.html).

The project website provides links to other websites concerning EAD, most of which are meant to help administrators who do not know how to convert databases to EAD 2002. For example, there are links to instructions on how to convert files from version 1.0, MARC (Machine Readable Cataloguing) or Microsoft Access to EAD 2000
(http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/uc-ead/tools/database/)

The website also provided links to books such as the EAD Cookbook, by Michael J. Fox (a member of the EAD Working Group). It was written to help people with more recent issues concerning EAD including converting EAD from SGML to XML, or EAD files into HTML (http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/ead/ead2002cookbookhelp.html)

While the majority of the links from the initial site were meant for those implementing EAD, there were some additional website links that gave a brief overview of EAD and the reasons for its creation. These too were written by people who were involved with EAD from the beginning. One such page was written by Daniel Patti. In an article for D-Lib Magazine he wrote that EAD would provide archivists with the opportunity to link records from different repositories to each other. This would allow users “to discover or locate archival materials at any time and from any place… [and would] also enable the "virtual" reintegration of collections related by provenance, but dispersed in different repositories.”
(http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november99/11pitti.html). This is very important because many collections have been dispersed over many archives, which means the connection of certain documents to their creator and other documents (which is of primary concern to an archivist) is lost.

While the EAD project website seems to only promote the beneficiary aspects of EAD, it is important to note that there have been some major problems concerning the implementation of EAD. Many studies in recent years have found that even though finding aids have become more standardised EAD interfaces used on-line are not consistent and are confusing for users (Yakel, 2004, p.75). Another study found that even though users found some of the EAD finding aids confusing, they preferred those that followed design guidelines (Duff, Stoyanova, 1998, p.65). It seems that the problem is not with the EAD interface itself, but the administrators who are using it to create their finding aids. In order to fix this problem it is necessary for more educational programmes to be provided to archivists so that EAD is used properly. If this does not happen, the whole purpose of EAD (to provide access to more people) will not be achieved.


References:

Barry, R.K., Gibbs Thibodeau, S., Pitti , D.V., Kiesling , K., Ransom , H., & Spindler, R.

Development of the Encoded Archival Description DTD. (2002). In Official EAD

version 2002 website. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from

http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddev.html

Design Principles for Enhancement to EAD. (2002). In Official EAD version 2002

website. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from

http://www.loc.gov/ead/eaddesgn.html

Duff, W., Stoyanova, P. (1998). Transforming the Crazy Quilt: Archival Displays

From a Users’ Point of View. Archivaria, 45, 44-79.

Fox, M. J. (2004). The EAD Cookbook 2002. In EAD Round Table of the Society of

American Archivists presents the EAD Help Pages. Retrieved September 23,

2005, from http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/ead/ead2002cookbookhelp.html


Montoya, G.A. (1999). Conversion of Microsoft Access Databases into EAD-

encoded Finding Aids. In EAD Round Table of the Society of American Archivists

presents the EAD Help Pages. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/FindingAids/uc-ead/tools/database/


Pitti, D.V. (1999). Encoded Archival Description: An Introduction and Overview.

D-Lib Magazine, 5(11). Retrieved September 23, 2005, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november99/11pitti.html


Yakel, E. (2004). Encoded Archival Description: Are Finding Aids Boundary

Spanners or Barriers for Users? Journal of Archival Organisation, 2, 63-77.

Anybody with a T.V.

Hi,
This is completely unrelated to anything, but I just thought people should know that the third season of Arreseted Development(also known as the best show ever) starts tonight. It's on at 8:00 on Fox or Global.

Hi,
I am an archives student at the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto and have created this blog for a course I am taking this term. I'm sure that those of you reading this are also in FIS 1311, and if by some slim chance you aren't, hello. If you are hello as well.

Sonja