more physical storage questions

[m.gor...@gmail.com]

The screen shots show this Archon collection semi-put into AtoM.  https://archives.lib.siu.edu/index.php?p=collections/controlcard&id=354 

Notice that the collection is too small for series.  Our folder numbers go back to Folder 1 when beginning a new box.  In physical-01, the first set of Files 1-3 are in Box 1 and the second set in Box 2.  The only way for someone to know what container these are in would be to look on the right side of the screen, correct?  It might be confusing for researchers to see a reset in folder numbering, and to know that a reset in folder numbering indicates a new container, without the container information being more prevalent.

It isn't unusual to restart folder numbers when a new container is needed.  And many collections contain a few containers but are not organized into series, so beyond collection level you jump right down to file level description.  Just wondering how others avoid potential confusion with the tree view in these situations.

Why is container TON - 02 not a link?  When logged in as administrator I can click that to see all of the files linked to that container.  Logged out, there is no link.

Why do the dates of the files not appear in the tree view on the left?  They only appear in the description box after clicking on a file.

In physical-02, you see a public view of the collection.  In ArchivesSpace, there is a physical container section that lists the containers you can click on to see the files in the containers.  I don't see that in AtoM.  Does such a thing exist?

Thanks,

Matt G

SIUC

[corinne...@gmail.com]

Hi Matt,

I will try to answer your questions in the body of your email below.

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 2:48:28 PM UTC-8, m.gor...@gmail.com wrote:

The screen shots show this Archon collection semi-put into AtoM.  https://archives.lib.siu.edu/index.php?p=collections/controlcard&id=354 

Notice that the collection is too small for series.  Our folder numbers go back to Folder 1 when beginning a new box.  In physical-01, the first set of Files 1-3 are in Box 1 and the second set in Box 2.  The only way for someone to know what container these are in would be to look on the right side of the screen, correct?  It might be confusing for researchers to see a reset in folder numbering, and to know that a reset in folder numbering indicates a new container, without the container information being more prevalent.

Yes, physical location information displays on the right side of the screen for the object to which it is attached. I don't think your researchers should be confused if the title of the file is descriptive. They might wonder why they see 'File 1 - Orienteering Contests' and 'File 1 - Recipes' but it won't affect their ability to interact with the material. 

It isn't unusual to restart folder numbers when a new container is needed.  And many collections contain a few containers but are not organized into series, so beyond collection level you jump right down to file level description.  Just wondering how others avoid potential confusion with the tree view in these situations.

One way to get around that, if "File" is the second level of the hierarchy under collection and you don't want fully sequential numbering might be to label your files 'File 1-1 - Orienteering Contests' and 'File 2-1 - Recipes'.

It is always an adjustment for researchers - or anyone - to switch to a new system, and you can help them by describing the things that will be new to them in a static 'Help' page. 

Why is container TON - 02 not a link?  When logged in as administrator I can click that to see all of the files linked to that container.  Logged out, there is no link.

An administrator can choose whether or not to make physical storage location information visible to a non-authenticated (public) user:

• https://www.accesstomemory.org/en/docs/2.4/user-manual/add-edit-content/physical-storage/#visibility

However, this information will only be a live link into the physical storage information module for logged in users. 

  

Why do the dates of the files not appear in the tree view on the left?  They only appear in the description box after clicking on a file.

Archon displays information from several fields in its title display field, and dates are one of those pieces of information. AtoM does not do this - in AtoM the treeview displays level of description, identifier, and title.

In physical-02, you see a public view of the collection.  In ArchivesSpace, there is a physical container section that lists the containers you can click on to see the files in the containers.  I don't see that in AtoM.  Does such a thing exist?

No, AtoM does not expect the public user or researcher to be searching through containers - access is through the intellectual organization of the finding aid, and retrieval of physical objects would be at the request to the archivist on site.

Hope that helps - please ask more questions as they arise!

cheers,

Corinne 

Thanks,

Matt G

SIUC

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Matt, 

One small point to add here: 

First, you can configure the full-width treeview to display dates if desired, in Admin > Settings > Treeview: 

• https://www.accesstomemory.org/docs/latest/user-manual/administer/settings/#show-dates
  

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ica-atom-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/ae39c426-7da5-49be-a66b-5437879bc758%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[m.gor...@gmail.com]

Thank you Dan and Corinne.  This is very helpful.  If we migrate from Archon, and we want to use Corinne's strategy of labeling files 1-1, 1-2, etc., would that be something we'd need to edit in every collection or can that be automated during migration, say, recognize the box number and insert it before the folder number?

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Matt, 

I think I would have to look at the data your institution would provide, but based on previous Archon migration projects, if Artefactual were performing your migration then yes, I would say there is a high likelihood that this is a data transformation we could script as part of a migration project so you wouldn't need to make manual updates in advance. 

If manual updates were made in your local system in advance however, that would be one less transformation we'd have to include as a development line item in a migration quote - so, more work for you, but less cost for the migration project. 

Cheers, 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:05 PM <m.gor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Dan and Corinne.  This is very helpful.  If we migrate from Archon, and we want to use Corinne's strategy of labeling files 1-1, 1-2, etc., would that be something we'd need to edit in every collection or can that be automated during migration, say, recognize the box number and insert it before the folder number?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ica-atom-users.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/920beb38-e4d0-4a46-a580-2cd9362ec7eb%40googlegroups.com.

[m.gor...@gmail.com]

It would be so much more work for us to make those pre-migration edits, that the pain and suffering cost would be far more severe than the financial cost.

Another comment/question...to make sure I'm thinking about physical storage the way AtoM intends...in my test collections seen in previous screen shots, I've been mentally equating the file-level of description with the concept of physical folder.  I link these file-level descriptions to boxes created in the physical storage module.  But folder is also a physical container option.  The only time I see us linking folder to a level of description would be in what we call the Vertical File Manuscripts, which are very small, standalone collections that fit in a single physical folder, organized numerically as VFM####.  I think I'm doing what most people do, by linking files in a larger collection to a physical box instead of physical folder.  I suppose the container taxonomy could have Folder as a narrower term under Box, but currently the only NTs under Box are specific types of boxes, and I don't really want to do that.

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Matt, 

How you choose to implement AtoM will depend entirely on your local practices, as well as working within what AtoM can accommodate. 

Have you ever had a situation where you received an accession from a donor, and in the received arrangement, there was a file folder stuffed to overflowing? When rehousing these for storage in acid-free folders, it would make sense to break the original contents up into 2 or more folders, for better storage so things getting smushed, bent, etc. However, to accurately reflect the original order maintained by the creator, you still need to consider this one intellectual file. It's exactly cases like this where the separation between file-as-intellectual-arrangement-level and physical folders is useful. 

There's no reason why one file-level description in AtoM can't be linked to multiple folders in the physical storage module, and if a researcher requests that file, you would know by looking at the linked physical storage information that you need to retrieve 2 folders. Additionally, researchers are often interested in what the original order of the records can tell us about the creator, especially with personal records. If you give researchers no way of knowing that folder 1 and folder 2 were actually a single folder when first received, then a) they might miss materials in folder 2 that would be of interest to them, and b) the sense of the creator's organizational and records-creation habits are lost, and may be replaced by researchers making incorrect assumptions about why the contents were divided as such (rather than knowing they were in fact one folder prior to archival processing). 

This comes back to the example I've shared previously with how we used our identifiers to indicate physical arrangement at UBC's Rare Books and Special Collections: 

• https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ica-atom-users/fZyu_z4H1IM/mhmihSNYCAAJ
  

In terms of your final statement: 

 I suppose the container taxonomy could have Folder as a narrower term under Box, but currently the only NTs under Box are specific types of boxes, and I don't really want to do that.  

You certainly could organize the terms hierarchically if desired, but since containers themselves can't be organized hierarchically at the moment (so you can nest a folder in a box, and box on a shelf, etc), there's no real advantage to doing so at present. We continue to have a lot of interest in developing AtoM's physical storage module, so hopefully this might be something that improves over time. 

Cheers,  

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:59 PM <m.gor...@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be so much more work for us to make those pre-migration edits, that the pain and suffering cost would be far more severe than the financial cost.

Another comment/question...to make sure I'm thinking about physical storage the way AtoM intends...in my test collections seen in previous screen shots, I've been mentally equating the file-level of description with the concept of physical folder.  I link these file-level descriptions to boxes created in the physical storage module.  But folder is also a physical container option.  The only time I see us linking folder to a level of description would be in what we call the Vertical File Manuscripts, which are very small, standalone collections that fit in a single physical folder, organized numerically as VFM####.  I think I'm doing what most people do, by linking files in a larger collection to a physical box instead of physical folder.  I suppose the container taxonomy could have Folder as a narrower term under Box, but currently the only NTs under Box are specific types of boxes, and I don't really want to do that.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ica-ato...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ica-atom-users.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/cba12c94-3e95-4bbb-a05e-6bdaeeb8c169%40googlegroups.com.