Dear Kate, Many thanks for engaging with this and for your helpful suggestions- we're very grateful for your advice,
Best wishes, Natalie From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Bowers, Kate A. Sent: 25 July 2019 17:45 To: Archivesspace Users Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Adding user-defined fields to archival object records Kate Bowers Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards Harvard University Archives [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> voice: (617) 998-5238 fax: (617) 495-8011 web: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:archives Twitter: @k8_bowers Our strategy in general has become "note with specified type plus locally-defined labels" but your mileage and needs may vary. Anything that can be a controlled vocabulary, I like to use a controlled vocabulary. In your cases I might do... alternate/former reference (x2) -if this is a former call number, we place data like this in note type=otherfindaid label="Obsolete call number" diplomatic form (eg minute book) -this we would probably map to subject type=genre/form and use the AS controlled vocabulary script of material (eg Sanskrit) -data like this we place in note type=language label="Script" physical condition ranking (a numerical ranking to generate standard 'outward facing' information aimed at researchers rather than AS assessment info-more structured than the AS notes about the physical characteristics etc) -hmm, my guess is we'd do a note type=general label="Condition rank". This strategy of note with specified type plus workflow-implemented labels is the strategy we initially used for DCRMG elements that don't have a place in EAD or ArchivesSpace. It's become handy for all kinds of data. Because initial data usually comes from outside AS, we have some control over the label and can make them fairly consistent. Kate ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Natalie Adams <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:49:54 AM To: Archivesspace Users Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Adding user-defined fields to archival object records Dear Kate, Sure-no problem. Some of the fields are coming from sources other than AtoM, We have:- alternate/former reference (x2) diplomatic form (eg minute book) script of material (eg Sanskrit) physical condition ranking (a numerical ranking to generate standard 'outward facing' information aimed at researchers rather than AS assessment info-more structured than the AS notes about the physical characteristics etc) I know that the AS general note maps to <odd> in EAD and this tag can serve as a good home/last resort for data you can't find a better home for. I'd still be interested in understanding the logic of user defined fields and resources/archival objects. I'm very much a newbie so apologies if I have missed something obvious about them. Many thanks! Natalie From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Bowers, Kate A. Sent: 25 July 2019 16:39 To: Archivesspace Users Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Adding user-defined fields to archival object records It would be helpful if you can give examples of the data fields you wish to migrate. Kate From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Natalie Adams Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:26 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Adding user-defined fields to archival object records Good afternoon all, This is a question about user-defined fields and archival objects. Here in Cambridge we have been working on migration -setting up crosswalks to map data from our existing systems (including AtoM) to ArchivesSpace. There are a small number of fields we have not been able to find a home for in AS and we had envisaged mapping them to user-defined fields. However, it looks as though it's not possible to add a set of user-defined fields to archival objects, though they can be added to other types of record (eg Resources). We are looking at migrating some substantial datasets into ArchivesSpace: in some cases several thousands of records will be nested beneath one parent/resource description (for example the archives of the University of Cambridge) and we want to map all our existing fields to ArchivesSpace (whether the AS records are archival objects or resource descriptions). I would be really interested in hearing whether anyone else has faced a similar challenge and has any advice about how we might tackle this. I'd also be interested to understand more about the background to the difference between archival objects and resources. Many thanks in advance for any help with this and best wishes, Natalie Natalie Adams Systems Archivist Cambridge University Library West Road Cambridge Cambridge, CB3 9DR Tel 01223 766377 www.lib.cam.ac.uk/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lib.cam.ac.uk_&d=DwMFAg&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=wwc_Z_TbmWbPFh7My2zRxmrGgCNO-71Fwzlmd8YZVUY&m=DCfBaBVe3SwxP-6fOh8TGxWBMd1AyvIYhADjWkvetv4&s=M_TgVhzJzuRteOKhBQo865bXlvQ4ZBhrT9ALyOeEafk&e=> Normal working days are Monday-Wednesday
_______________________________________________ Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list [email protected] http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group
