series system/history field/online publication/hierarchical display/event relationships
12 views
Skip to first unread message
V
Sep 7, 2009, 5:43:45 AM9/7/09
to ICA-AtoM Users
Hi
I'm new to AtoM. It's looking really promising and I’m hoping to test
it at my institution (Strathclyde University Archives). First, though,
I have a few questions -
1. Will it be possible to use AtoM for cataloguing based on the
‘series’ system and the fonds at the same time? I read a thread
elsewhere on this forum which suggested that you’re considering having
different templates for each. This would not be ideal for me as I’d
like to use the series system for some collections and fonds for
others.
2. Is there any way to stop the contents of the history field in the
authority record being inserted automatically in the record
description? Sometimes this is useful, but not always. When I’m using
the series system, I would prefer to reserve the ISAD(G) admin history
element for information about the administration of the series in
question, and keep the history of the entity in the authority record.
3. I’m impressed with the speed with which new additions to one’s
catalogue appear online but I’m also concerned that this might not
always be suitable! If you’re cataloguing directly into AtoM you may
want to wait until you’ve finished a whole collection before it goes
live. Delaying live publication is an option in Archon. Would it be
possible to do something similar in AtoM?
4. When you’re adding lower level descriptions to a fonds description,
is there any way to change the order in which they appear in the
hierarchical display? Again, I’m thinking about a catalogue that’s in
progress where you may change your mind about the order of lower
levels, or when you get new additions to a collection. In both
circumstances it would be invaluable to be able to change the order in
which they’re displayed.
5. I am very interested in your idea of ‘Event relationships’. Can you
tell me if/when you plan to implement these?
Sorry for the length of this post!
Thanks for your help.
Victoria Peters
I'm new to AtoM. It's looking really promising and I’m hoping to test
it at my institution (Strathclyde University Archives). First, though,
I have a few questions -
1. Will it be possible to use AtoM for cataloguing based on the
‘series’ system and the fonds at the same time? I read a thread
elsewhere on this forum which suggested that you’re considering having
different templates for each. This would not be ideal for me as I’d
like to use the series system for some collections and fonds for
others.
2. Is there any way to stop the contents of the history field in the
authority record being inserted automatically in the record
description? Sometimes this is useful, but not always. When I’m using
the series system, I would prefer to reserve the ISAD(G) admin history
element for information about the administration of the series in
question, and keep the history of the entity in the authority record.
3. I’m impressed with the speed with which new additions to one’s
catalogue appear online but I’m also concerned that this might not
always be suitable! If you’re cataloguing directly into AtoM you may
want to wait until you’ve finished a whole collection before it goes
live. Delaying live publication is an option in Archon. Would it be
possible to do something similar in AtoM?
4. When you’re adding lower level descriptions to a fonds description,
is there any way to change the order in which they appear in the
hierarchical display? Again, I’m thinking about a catalogue that’s in
progress where you may change your mind about the order of lower
levels, or when you get new additions to a collection. In both
circumstances it would be invaluable to be able to change the order in
which they’re displayed.
5. I am very interested in your idea of ‘Event relationships’. Can you
tell me if/when you plan to implement these?
Sorry for the length of this post!
Thanks for your help.
Victoria Peters
Evelyn McLellan
Sep 8, 2009, 1:05:34 PM9/8/09
to ICA-AtoM Users
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your interest in ICA-AtoM. I've inserted some comments
below.
Evelyn McLellan
ICA-AtoM Community Manager
On Sep 7, 2:43 am, V <victoria.peters.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm new to AtoM. It's looking really promising and I’m hoping to test
> it at my institution (Strathclyde University Archives). First, though,
> I have a few questions -
>
> 1. Will it be possible to use AtoM for cataloguing based on the
> ‘series’ system and the fonds at the same time? I read a thread
> elsewhere on this forum which suggested that you’re considering having
> different templates for each. This would not be ideal for me as I’d
> like to use the series system for some collections and fonds for
> others.
Yes, you can use the same templates for both fonds and series. You
just choose either fonds or series (or collection, if you like) as the
highest level of description and add child levels below them as
desired.
appearing in the ISAD(G) record. In accordance with the ISAD(G)
standard, this field is reserved specifically for administrative/
biographical information about the creator. For administrative history
about the series, you should use the scope and content field, archival
history field and/or other fields (such as system of arrangement),
depending upon the type of information you are recording.
functionalities that will allow you to do just what you're describing.
However, it won't be available until release 1.1, scheduled for March
2010.
Unfortunately, however, at present it's not considered feasible to
provide a drag-and-drop functionality in the context menu box (it
would be really hard to do in a web environment). However, we intend
to include the ability to sort alphabetically in the hierarchical
display in release 1.0.8, scheduled for this October.
successor/predecessor relationships), these will also be included in
release 1.0.8. However, if you're talking about creation/publication/
accumulation events etc. in archival descriptions, these are already
available in the RAD, Dublin Core and MODS templates but were removed
from the ISAD(G) template at the request of the ICA, which felt that
the event feature did not comply with the ISAD(G) standard.
Thanks for your interest in ICA-AtoM. I've inserted some comments
below.
Evelyn McLellan
ICA-AtoM Community Manager
On Sep 7, 2:43 am, V <victoria.peters.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm new to AtoM. It's looking really promising and I’m hoping to test
> it at my institution (Strathclyde University Archives). First, though,
> I have a few questions -
>
> 1. Will it be possible to use AtoM for cataloguing based on the
> ‘series’ system and the fonds at the same time? I read a thread
> elsewhere on this forum which suggested that you’re considering having
> different templates for each. This would not be ideal for me as I’d
> like to use the series system for some collections and fonds for
> others.
just choose either fonds or series (or collection, if you like) as the
highest level of description and add child levels below them as
desired.
>
> 2. Is there any way to stop the contents of the history field in the
> authority record being inserted automatically in the record
> description? Sometimes this is useful, but not always. When I’m using
> the series system, I would prefer to reserve the ISAD(G) admin history
> element for information about the administration of the series in
> question, and keep the history of the entity in the authority record.
There is no way to keep the creator's administrative history from
> 2. Is there any way to stop the contents of the history field in the
> authority record being inserted automatically in the record
> description? Sometimes this is useful, but not always. When I’m using
> the series system, I would prefer to reserve the ISAD(G) admin history
> element for information about the administration of the series in
> question, and keep the history of the entity in the authority record.
appearing in the ISAD(G) record. In accordance with the ISAD(G)
standard, this field is reserved specifically for administrative/
biographical information about the creator. For administrative history
about the series, you should use the scope and content field, archival
history field and/or other fields (such as system of arrangement),
depending upon the type of information you are recording.
>
> 3. I’m impressed with the speed with which new additions to one’s
> catalogue appear online but I’m also concerned that this might not
> always be suitable! If you’re cataloguing directly into AtoM you may
> want to wait until you’ve finished a whole collection before it goes
> live. Delaying live publication is an option in Archon. Would it be
> possible to do something similar in AtoM?
This is a good question. We are working on a set of workflow
> 3. I’m impressed with the speed with which new additions to one’s
> catalogue appear online but I’m also concerned that this might not
> always be suitable! If you’re cataloguing directly into AtoM you may
> want to wait until you’ve finished a whole collection before it goes
> live. Delaying live publication is an option in Archon. Would it be
> possible to do something similar in AtoM?
functionalities that will allow you to do just what you're describing.
However, it won't be available until release 1.1, scheduled for March
2010.
>
> 4. When you’re adding lower level descriptions to a fonds description,
> is there any way to change the order in which they appear in the
> hierarchical display? Again, I’m thinking about a catalogue that’s in
> progress where you may change your mind about the order of lower
> levels, or when you get new additions to a collection. In both
> circumstances it would be invaluable to be able to change the order in
> which they’re displayed.
Another good question! We have been looking at this issue for a while.
> 4. When you’re adding lower level descriptions to a fonds description,
> is there any way to change the order in which they appear in the
> hierarchical display? Again, I’m thinking about a catalogue that’s in
> progress where you may change your mind about the order of lower
> levels, or when you get new additions to a collection. In both
> circumstances it would be invaluable to be able to change the order in
> which they’re displayed.
Unfortunately, however, at present it's not considered feasible to
provide a drag-and-drop functionality in the context menu box (it
would be really hard to do in a web environment). However, we intend
to include the ability to sort alphabetically in the hierarchical
display in release 1.0.8, scheduled for this October.
>
> 5. I am very interested in your idea of ‘Event relationships’. Can you
> tell me if/when you plan to implement these?
If you're referring to relationships between authority records (i.e.
> 5. I am very interested in your idea of ‘Event relationships’. Can you
> tell me if/when you plan to implement these?
successor/predecessor relationships), these will also be included in
release 1.0.8. However, if you're talking about creation/publication/
accumulation events etc. in archival descriptions, these are already
available in the RAD, Dublin Core and MODS templates but were removed
from the ISAD(G) template at the request of the ICA, which felt that
the event feature did not comply with the ISAD(G) standard.
>
> Sorry for the length of this post!
No problem, I hope I've been helpful.
> Sorry for the length of this post!
Victoria Peters
Sep 9, 2009, 4:43:38 AM9/9/09
to ICA-AtoM Users
Hi Evelyn
Thanks for answering so promptly and so fully!
>Yes, you can use the same templates for both fonds and series. You
>just choose either fonds or series (or collection, if you like) as the
>highest level of description and add child levels below them as
>desired.
Great!
>There is no way to keep the creator's administrative history from
>appearing in the ISAD(G) record. In accordance with the ISAD(G)
>standard, this field is reserved specifically for administrative/
>biographical information about the creator. For administrative history
>about the series, you should use the scope and content field, archival
>history field and/or other fields (such as system of arrangement),
>depending upon the type of information you are recording.
I've just reread ISAD(G) and have to admit you're right!
>This is a good question. We are working on a set of workflow
>functionalities that will allow you to do just what you're describing.
>However, it won't be available until release 1.1, scheduled for March
>2010.
Great!
>Another good question! We have been looking at this issue for a while.
>Unfortunately, however, at present it's not considered feasible to
>provide a drag-and-drop functionality in the context menu box (it
>would be really hard to do in a web environment). However, we intend
>to include the ability to sort alphabetically in the hierarchical
>display in release 1.0.8, scheduled for this October.
Being able to sort alphabetically is good and would probably be
adequate for most situations. I suppose for those occasions when you
really need to do something different, there's always the option to
export to EAD, edit in EAD, and then import back to AtoM!
>If you're referring to relationships between authority records (i.e.
>successor/predecessor relationships), these will also be included in
>release 1.0.8. However, if you're talking about creation/publication/
>accumulation events etc. in archival descriptions, these are already
>available in the RAD, Dublin Core and MODS templates but were removed
>from the ISAD(G) template at the request of the ICA, which felt that
>the event feature did not comply with the ISAD(G) standard.
I'm delighted to hear that relationships between authority records is
imminent. I look forward to it! It's a shame about the other types of
events not being in the ISAD(G) template, though. I think they have
the potential to create a really exciting descriptive system. The ICA,
of course, is currently reviewing the 4 descriptive standards. As a
member of the committee on best practices and standards, I shall flag
it up for reconsideration!
Victoria
Thanks for answering so promptly and so fully!
>Yes, you can use the same templates for both fonds and series. You
>just choose either fonds or series (or collection, if you like) as the
>highest level of description and add child levels below them as
>desired.
>There is no way to keep the creator's administrative history from
>appearing in the ISAD(G) record. In accordance with the ISAD(G)
>standard, this field is reserved specifically for administrative/
>biographical information about the creator. For administrative history
>about the series, you should use the scope and content field, archival
>history field and/or other fields (such as system of arrangement),
>depending upon the type of information you are recording.
>This is a good question. We are working on a set of workflow
>functionalities that will allow you to do just what you're describing.
>However, it won't be available until release 1.1, scheduled for March
>2010.
>Another good question! We have been looking at this issue for a while.
>Unfortunately, however, at present it's not considered feasible to
>provide a drag-and-drop functionality in the context menu box (it
>would be really hard to do in a web environment). However, we intend
>to include the ability to sort alphabetically in the hierarchical
>display in release 1.0.8, scheduled for this October.
adequate for most situations. I suppose for those occasions when you
really need to do something different, there's always the option to
export to EAD, edit in EAD, and then import back to AtoM!
>If you're referring to relationships between authority records (i.e.
>successor/predecessor relationships), these will also be included in
>release 1.0.8. However, if you're talking about creation/publication/
>accumulation events etc. in archival descriptions, these are already
>available in the RAD, Dublin Core and MODS templates but were removed
>from the ISAD(G) template at the request of the ICA, which felt that
>the event feature did not comply with the ISAD(G) standard.
imminent. I look forward to it! It's a shame about the other types of
events not being in the ISAD(G) template, though. I think they have
the potential to create a really exciting descriptive system. The ICA,
of course, is currently reviewing the 4 descriptive standards. As a
member of the committee on best practices and standards, I shall flag
it up for reconsideration!
Victoria
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages