File versus folder numbering

[Anne-Marie]

Hello, folks,

I believe this is a new topic after performing due diligence on the forum earlier this morning... As we are inputting our legacy MS Word finding aids into AtoM, a debate has arisen as to the numbering of our files and the place to record folder numbers -- one on which I am hoping the forum can advise. 

Historically, ICFA has numbered files sequentially across a collection, meaning that regardless of any interim record levels (eg - series, subseries) for most collections file numbers are unique within the collection, rather than beginning at 1 within each subsequent record group. To give an example, we have a collection with two series: Series 1 has 10 files numbered 1-10, while Series 2 has 8 files numbered 11-18. (In very large collections, files are numbered within a subgroup.)

The alternative approach we're debating is to number files respective to their parent: Series 1 (10 files), Files 1-10, Series 2 (8 files), Files 1-8. Given how AtoM uses identifiers to construct its reference codes, this allows a reading of the following example, MS.BZ.005-02-003, the third file in the second series in collection #5 (rather than the third file in the collection).

Secondarily, we are debating the correct place to record folder numbers. As there is not a 1-1 relationship between "files" in AtoM and physical folders (something we are all in agreement about -- that simply because a work requires the physical space of 3 folders does not mean it should be represented by 3 "file" records in Atom) and we are reluctant to create innumerable folder-level storage records (preferring to only create box-level storage records)... if our identifiers don't match our folder numbers we are left wondering where to put our folder numbers (as we obviously will not be relabeling all of our folders), specifically when a file may represent multiple physical folders, each of which are individually numbered???

Before abandoning this debate as semantic, I thought it might be wise to put it to the group. Looking forward to your insights!

As always, with great appreciation and best regards,

Anne-Marie H. Viola

Metadata & Cataloguing Specialist,

Image Collections and Fieldwork Archives (ICFA)

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

1703 32nd Street, NW Washington, DC 20007

http://www.doaks.org/library-archives/icfa

[d...@artefactual.com]

Hi Anne-Marie,

Allow me to speak not as an Artefactual employee for a moment, but as an AtoM user while working at UBC's Rare Books and Special Collections.

I will let others speak to the first part of your question from their experiences, but as regards the second: our approach at RBSC for managing the difference between physical folders vs. conceptual files has been to use slashes in our reference numbers. This is partially due to the fact that our identifiers are used as a simple box-file schema: for example, box 406, file 2's description in AtoM would be RBSC-ARC-406-02. When we encounter scenarios where the contents of a single "file" take up multiple folders, we represent the file's reference code as a reflection of this - for example, RBSC-ARC-406-03/04/05 would be the next "file" after 406-02, which is comprised of 3 physical folders. The next file after that would be 406-06.

I'm sure there are a number of other variations and possibilities to achieve the same thing - I would love to hear more about what you end up implementing.

Hope that helps,

Dan Gillean
Systems Analyst

Artefactual Systems, Inc.
www.artefactual.com