NeoArch

It was announced today within the Archon forum that Archon and the Archivists’ Toolkit will be integrated in order to combine the best features of both. I will be watching this project with much interest. I have tried both applications, and I have a definite preference for Archon. I sincerely hope that this strengthens Archon, rather than weakening it.

I can think of strengths that could be gained from this integration. A GUI could be a nice addition. The folder view in Archivists’ Toolkit is nice as well. I also hope that these development efforts will also lead to a new platform that supports union catalogs from the outset.

There are dangers in the combined efforts as well, in my opinion. I  hope that the nice, clean PHP code used in Archon doesn’t get mucked up with some sort of integration with Java, which I hate with a passion. I think using a great deal of Java would slow development and reduce the ability of many to do customization. Did I mention that I hate Java? I also hope that development isn’t stymied due to a lack of competition. Competition is always good, even when it’s between open source products. I also hope that Chris Prom’s influence on the project is undiminished. Chris’ two American Archivist articles on the EAD Cookbook and user interactions with finding aids set up a solid research foundation for the entire Archon project. Without his research, the project would not have been as good as what it is.

Still, this project holds promise, and I think the outcome will probably be good for archivists.

At the most recent ALABI meeting, I presented a session on Archon and the Archivists’ Toolkit. It was a really basic session. I included a brief overview of open source software in general as well as an overview and comparison of both Archon and the Archivists’ Toolkit. I closed by offering several questions to help determine which piece of software might meet an archivist’s needs.

If you are looking for a really simple comparison of the two systems, you can find my presentation here.

I mentioned earlier that the Archivist’s Toolkit had been released. Tomorrow, the Archon Project is scheduled to release version 1.10 of Archon. I played with version 1. It was easy to install and a very powerful tool. The digital library function was particularly promising. I noticed a couple of bugs in version 1 while testing it, so I didn’t put it into production. I am fairly certain that these bugs will be remedied in this latest release, and I cannot wait until I get the time to install and test it. All the folks at UIUC who were involved in this project need to be congratulated for their vision and vigor because they brought such a project into being. What an interesting and exciting time it is to be an archivist!

• Roe, Kathleen D . Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts, Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2005.

Kathleen Roe’s Arranging & Describing Archives & Manuscripts is part of the Society of American Archivists’ Archival Fundamentals Series II. It replaces Frederic Miller’s book of the same title. Both are extremely valuable books, and in my opinion, they complement one another. Miller’s book reads more like a manual. It is very thorough, and I have reviewed it already. Roe’s contribution is an easier read and seems in many places to be carefully, thoughtfully worded. Take, for example, her description of the task of arrangement. “To accomplish [description], the archivist must first arrange records, that is, identify the intellectual pattern existing in the materials, then make sure their physical organization reflects that pattern” (7-8, emphasis mine). I wish someone had described it to me that way when I first began working in archives. That description is nearly perfect and exceptionally graceful. In short, Roe’s work reads more like an introduction to arrangement and description than Miller’s work.

The book begins with an overview of what archives and description (A&D) is and how it relates to other tasks the archivist undertakes like appraisal, preservation, and reference. It then has a chapter on the core concepts for A&D, a chapter that summarizes how A&D practices have developed over time, and a chapter on the practice of A&D The latter chapter makes up the bulk of the book. In the core concepts chapter, Roe does a good job of distinguishing archives from related institutions like libraries and museums. Likewise, she emphasizes strongly that description should begin at the highest level.

Chapter three is essentially a historical overview of A&D practice, especially in the U. S. and Canada. She briefly details the development of standards like MARC, APPM, EAD, DACS, RAD, and ISAD(G). The final chapter examines A&D practice. Although it does not read as manual-like as Miller’s work, Roe provides a solid foundation for thinking through the entire process of A&D, from accessioning to developing finding aids.

The one subject that I wish Roe would have treated more thoroughly is how to implement standardization within one’s collections. I suppose that thorough discussions of implementing EAD and DACS are more appropriate for extended works rather than introductions, but I was hoping for more from this book in that area.

While reading this work, I often found myself thinking, “she just answered a question I have been thinking about for some time.” This entire work contains excellent and well-placed insets with pertinent examples to the subject being discussed. Additionally, Roe offers several appendices that give extended examples and case studies. The case studies prove especially helpful in providing practical advice for dealing with rather difficult arrangement decisions. All in all, I would recommend this book highly, especially to novice archivists.

Because I am a librarian, I believe that those who search should find. Someone was led to this site today after having used the search string "difference between archives and manuscripts."

I don't know who the searcher was, but if he or she feels kinda like Bono did back in 1987, (i.e. I still haven't found what I'm looking for,) then I have some good news.

Here are the glossary definitions that the Society of American Archivists provides for archives and manuscript. The differences there should be fairly obvious.

A Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers (The Society of American Archivists, 1992), edited by Lewis J. Bellardo and Lynn Lady Bellardo, defines archives as "The non-current records of an organization or institution preserved because of their continuing value." It also defines manuscript as "A handwritten or typed document."

The University of Maryland also describes the differences between archives and manuscripts in this FAQ.

Personally, I think that the difference between the two lies in who created the documents and why they were created. If documents were created by an organization, institution, business, agency, or individual for legal obligations or business transactions, they are archives. If they were created or collected by individuals or families for reasons other than these, they are manuscripts.

There is some ambiguity inherent in the way I view the distinction. For example, personal papers (i.e. a type of manuscript collection) often contain information about business transations such as land purchases, stocks, and investments. But these series within the overall collection are generally small portions of the overall collection and do not represent the character of the whole. Still, I think that evaluating the character and function of records generally yields a pretty clear distinction between these two types of collections.

• Prom, Christopher. "The EAD Cookbook: A Survey and Usability Study," American Archivist 65 (2002): 257-275.

This article provides summary results of a survey and usability study of the EAD Cookbook, a guide designed to ease the implementation of the Encoded Archival Description standard for finding aids. Prom notes that many have questioned whether EAD is a viable option for archival institutions to use in producing finding aids because of the difficulties in implementing EAD creation. The EAD Cookbook was designed to help institutions use this standard, but Prom asks whether the cookbook itself is efficient and easy to use for archives. To determine this, Prom surveyed a number of individuals who had used the cookbook to create EAD finding aids at the institutions for which they work.

Prom surveyed individuals from institutions of various sizes. The result of Prom's survey highlighted several points. At the time of the survey, most of the respondents had not yet mounted their EAD finding aids on the internet. Many users had self-taught computer skills. Some felt that in order to use the cookbook, one had to have a pretty good handle on technology. Others felt that there were several bugs in it. Despite negative reaction by some respondents, others felt that the source was an invaluable tool to their EAD projects. Prom covers some basic points about the usability of EAD and the way people search. He supplies the results of a "Google test" to which he subjected finding aids from some of the institutions he surveyed. The results were less than to be desired on finding aids that had been modified in substantial ways that differed from the cookbook. He believes that the EAD Cookbook is an effective tool, but that more tools are needed for making EAD easier to implement.

• Prom, Christopher. “User Interaction with Electronic Finding Aids in a Controlled Setting,” American Archivist 67 (2004): 234-268.

This article presents the results of tests that were conducted by the archives at the University of Illinois to determine how different types of potential patrons interact with various types of electronic finding aids. Prom describes the methodology used for the tests. The tests used a variety of types of participants. Some had used archives before. Some were archival novices. Some had computer experience but no archives experience. Some had archives experience, but little computer experience. The tests had a good mix of people that probably fairly represent the types of patrons an archivist would encounter. The participants were tested to see if they could find specific information at several types of sites. Some sites used searchable EAD, but others used non searchable EAD, HTML, or PDF.

There were several points in the article in which I was particularly interested. First, Prom’s findings
regarding PDF were that most participants did not like it. Not surprisingly, they felt that it was bulky and it took a long time to search. Second, search interfaces should be fairly simple and straightforward, and they should “avoid archival terminology.” Those participants who had either computer or archival experience were most successful and used the least amount of time to find what they needed. Clear mapping and browsing functions often helped searchers find what they need more efficiently than a search box. Prom also notes that users often use browser functions like CTRL+F to find the data for which they are searching. He suggests that archivists probably should not do anything that will cause this feature not to work (ie. like dividing the finding aid up into multiple pages) , unless they have a complex search system in place that can more than make up for it.

• MacNeil, Heather. "Picking Our Text: Archival Description, Authenticity, and the Archivist as Editor," The American Archivist 68 (2005): 264-278.

In this article, Heather MacNeil examines the issue of authenticity as related to archival description. She admittedly writes from a postmodern perspective, and she intends to reexamine an area that has largely been ignored. She argues that more work should be done examining the relationship between description and authenticity. She says that textual criticism offers a parallel for what the archivist often does in describing a collection, because both textual critics and archivists are trying, as much as possible, to describe an authentic representation of an original body of work.

She says that comparing textual criticism and description could mean several things. First, she contends that archivists should be up front about the nature of their work by admitting that they play an influential role on the way that later researchers interpret a collection. Second, she contends that finding aids are socio-historical texts, and that the changes that take place in them shape the way that researchers understand a collection. Third, she suggests that archivists should be open, in some way, to showing the various iterations of the text of a finding aid over time. This can be attained, largely, through the use of annotations, although one does not want to overuse them. She ends by noting that further exploration of this topic needs to be pursued.

• Describing Archives: A Content Standard. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2004.

Sitting down to read Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) falls somewhere between reading Chicago Manual of Style and stereo instructions on the enjoyment level (despite its length, I prefer to read the former.) DACS is a replacement standard for the Society of American Archivists' Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts. DACS was designed to be a descriptive standard that can be used within various types of systems for recording descriptive data, and the authors of DACS go to great lengths to stress the standard's independence from the systems that output descriptions. An archivist can use DACS within EAD, MARC 21, or various in-house systems for storing data about collections. The book has three sections that treat how to describe materials, creators, and names. DACS avoids the problem of not providing more than five levels of arrangement and description by requiring that "an information system employ some means of linking ogether the various levels of description." The standard does not, however, provide instructions for description at the item level or lower. DACS notes that the variety of types of materials prevents providing rules for description at that level.

DACS provides a brief overview of the principles that undergird it. These principles highlight issues such as the uniqueness of archival materials, respect des fonds, the difference between arrangement and description, the nature of description, and the necessity of describing the creators of archival materials. As stated above, DACS strives to be independent of any type of access tool. DACS does encourage, however, the creation of access points within whatever tool the archivist uses to store the data. In other words, by supplying archivists with a standard way of presenting necessary descriptive data such as names, places, subjects, documentary forms, occupations, and functions, DACS creates access points for finding resources in much the same way that judicious use of the Library of Congress Subject Headings creates access points for finding books.

The code is structured in such a way as to prevent redundancy and to make sure that the content of each element is mutually exclusive. Because output standards vary, DACS does not require a specific order for elements that one includes in a description. One helpful provision that DACS makes is that it often suggests where information to supply for a certain element can be contained. For example, it may say something like, "Take the information from other descriptions of archival materials," or "Derive the information from the materials themselves and repository policy." These locations are not always intuitive when one is processing collections. DACS also provides other types of useful information like how to determine what the appropriate title for a collection is. Finally, DACS is also helpful because it allows for a good deal of leaway in how one describes records. DACS recognizes that collections, materials, funds, practices, and capabilities vary greatly from institution to institution. Additionally, archivists differ in the way they describe collections. Rather than supplying a wooden standard that falls into disuse, DACS offers archivists a tool that can be appropriated in developing in-house description policies that in turn bring consistency to descriptive practices.

• Carmicheal, David W. Organizing Archival Records: A Practical Method of Arrangement and Description for Small Archives, 2nd ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004. 

David Carmicheal's Organizing Archival Records is one of the best guides available for aiding archivists of small institutions in processing their collections. The book is simple, short, and practical. Carmichael not only describes the process for arranging and describing collections in this work, he also provides practical helps such as case studies and exercises that flesh out exactly what he is describing. Additionally, the book contains a CD-ROM that includes a database system that a small archives can use to manage its collections. This book provides a solid basis for training new workers in archives on how to process collections, and because of its brevity and lack of technical jargon, even a new worker should be able to read it within the span of an afternoon. If a new archivist of a small collection consumes this book and Yakel's Starting an Archives, he or she will be well prepared to set up and run their archives in an acceptable fashion.

Carmichael divides the book into three sections that deal with the purpose of organization, the levels of organization, and the steps of organization. In short, Carmichael says that the purpose of organizing collections within an archives is to help researchers find the answers to their questions. He notes that archival materials cannot be arranged and described in the same way as books because they were not created like books, they need more security than books, they are generally more complex in subject matter than books. Thus, organization for archives is much more different than it is for books, although the purpose for organizing both types of materials is similar.

Carmichael divides the levels of arrangement into four categories: record group, series, file unit, and item. He adequately describes each category, and he offers fairly detailed instructions for how to determine the boundaries of series within a collection. He notes that archivists typically discover series within a collection rather than creating them. He stresses the need for distinguishing between archives and manuscript collections. For him, the main distinction between the two lies in who created the materials. If an institution produced the records, then they are archives. If they were papers created or accumulated by an individual, they are manuscripts. While this distinction is a bit simplistic, Carmicheal's point works extremely well in the type of small archives one might find at a church or a historical society. He also briefly explains the basic steps of accessioning materials.

Carmichael divides archival processing into twelve basic steps that one could adjust to fit almost any small archival institution. The steps are well thought out, and provide a thorough workflow for processing. The processing workflow begins with assigning a number to the collection. After this, the archivist researchers the collection and complementary materials to discover such things as who created the collection, when it was created, and what types of materials it contains, and what subjects it addresses. The archivist uses this information to name the collection and to produce initial paperwork that describes the collection in a basic manner. The archivist progressively works through the collection to a greater and greated degree, determining what series are in the collection and how the files are organized. At the end of the process Carmichael describes, the archivist has fully processed the collection, created a brief usable finding aid, labeled and shelved the collection, and created a catalog entry.