Name access point only for "name as subject"?
David Juhasz
> Issue 1132 suggests that the unqualified name access points are to be
> used for names as subjects only (subject of ...). What is the scope of
> the name access point data entry, as opposed to adding an “event”
> (relationship between description and authority record)? Without issue
> 1132, I’m not sure I would have concluded that the name access points
> were only for names as subjects, as opposed to unqualified access
> points. If it is indeed for subjects, this should be clear on the data
> entry form, or else access points not intended as subjects (e.g., a
> RAD access point like name of person holding office) might be
> innocently entered here. If that is the intended scope, then I think
> the label on the data entry form should be changed accordingly. If the
> scope is broader, then I think a different term would be needed
> instead of "subject of" ... although nothing good springs to mind at
> the moment :)
Hmm, the labeling of the "subject of" header and data entry form sounds
like a question for our archivists to me, so I will leave it to Evelyn,
Peter or Jessica to respond more fully. I'm forwarding this to our
discussion list to open up the question to the ICA-AtoM community.
From what I can understand the issue is that adding a "name access
point" to a description automatically makes the linked actor a "subject"
of the description, which precludes some more arcane linkage like "name
of person holding office" and that the system labeling doesn't make this
assumption clear.
From a technical standpoint adding an "event" linking a description to
an actor uses the "event" table which allows specifying additional
information about the relationship, such as dates, place and descriptive
text. The "name access point" linkage uses the "relation" table which
doesn't allow specifying dates, place, etc. From my understanding the
intended difference between an "event" and a "relation" in the system is
that an event has a time component (e.g. it is something that happened)
whereas a relationship is not time bound (a subject is always a
subject). I'm not sure how this meshes with current archival practice.
--
David Juhasz,
Software Engineer
Artefactual Systems Inc.
www.artefactual.com
Tim Hutchinson
I think it comes down to how "subject" is being defined. RAD does not
formally define subject, but my basic understanding is that we use that
term to refer to the *contents* of the records rather than the context
(creation, authorship, etc.). And in RAD's rules for selecting access
point, the heading for the general rule is "provenance, author and other
*non-subject* access points"
I would not advocate separately qualifying the additional non-subject
access points (e.g. name of a person holding an office), but we need to
be able to create such an access point.
As one example, take the example for rule 21.8 of RAD:
> Title of sub-series: Interdepartmental Committee on Human Rights
> minutes
> (F.R. MacKinnon removed the minutes from his official files when he was
> Deputy Minister of Public Welfare and had them bound into four volumes)
> (Make custodial access point for F.R. MacKinnon)
Most likely, F.R. MacKinnon is not a "subject" of these records in the
sense of being written about.
So, perhaps there is a better generic term for this. Another option to
consider would be to allow the name access points to be qualified
(through a controlled vocabulary), to avoid the
complications/assumptions around time-bound events.
Tim
On 3/4/2011 4:01 PM, David Juhasz wrote:
> On 11-03-02 03:32 PM, Tim Hutchinson wrote:
>> Issue 1132 suggests that the unqualified name access points are to be
>> used for names as subjects only (subject of ...). What is the scope
>> of the name access point data entry, as opposed to adding an �event�
>> (relationship between description and authority record)? Without
>> issue 1132, I�m not sure I would have concluded that the name access
--
Tim Hutchinson
University of Saskatchewan Archives
301 Main Library, 3 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A4
tel: (306) 966-6028
fax: (306) 966-6040
e-mail: tim.hut...@usask.ca
web: http://www.usask.ca/archives/
peterVG
points by far will be as "subject of". In earlier releases users got
confused about adding this via the 'Event' dialog box so we switched
to using the 'relation' which was more consistent with how subject and
geographic place access points were being added (as David explained in
his response above).
Users can still add any type of qualified relation by making the
relation via the Event table and adding the relation type to the Event
type taxonomy if it doesn't already exist (e.g. 'had custody of',
'removed files', etc). That was very much one of the rationales for
the 'Event' entity to begin with.
Cheers,
--peter
P.S. EAC limits resourceRelationType to just 'creatorOf' and
'subjectOf' http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/eac/cpf/tagLibrary/cpfTagLibrary.html#d1e603
> web:http://www.usask.ca/archives/
Tim Hutchinson
So as I understand it, the "event" dialog can be used if we need to
qualify access points, and otherwise the name access points are
predominantly used for names as subjects.
That being the case, since issue 1132 is being implemented to add a
"subject of" block, my suggestion would be update the data entry
interface in an similar way, so that users know they are entering a
subject. My initial concern was situations where the "name access point"
entry is used for generic name access points (not necessarily subjects)
... with the user to discover that these are intended to be subjects
only after saving the record.
Tim
>>>> of the name access point data entry, as opposed to adding an �event�
>>>> (relationship between description and authority record)? Without
>>>> issue 1132, I�m not sure I would have concluded that the name access
e-mail: tim.hut...@usask.ca
web: http://www.usask.ca/archives/
Peter Van Garderen
clunky or confusing?
* Name (subject) access point
* Name (as subject) access point
--peter
Tim Hutchinson
Name access points
So, what about simply
Name access points (subjects)
and then the user manual could help clarify when to use that rather than
the event dialog.
http://www.ica-atom.org/doc/Rules_for_Archival_Description#Name_access_points
http://www.ica-atom.org/doc/ISAD#Name_access_points
In the public display, unqualified name access points appear with
authority entries added through the event dialog, with the qualifiers
(e.g. Creator), so as part of our development of this enhancement we
have added the qualifier (Subject).
Tim
tel: 306-966-6028
fax: 306-966-6040
email: tim.hut...@usask.ca