...

Recommendations

These recommendations are for the default values. The labels should be able to be changed by implementers.

Top-Level

Repositories

• unchanged

Collections

• unchanged

Digital Items

• previously Digital Objects

Unprocessed Material

• previously Accessions

Subjects

• unchanged

People and Organizations

• previously Names

Record Groups

• previously Classifications

Object-Level

Administrative Information

• previously Summary

Dates

• unchanged

Physical Size & Scope of Material

• previously Extents

Related People and Organizations

• previously Agent Links

Subjects

• unchanged

Description

• previously Notes

Physical Storage & Digital Access Information

• previously Instances

Contents & Arrangement

• previously Components

...

Comments & Discussion

Leaving in this document to show some of the reasoning we used in coming to the recommendations.

Top-Level

Repositories

• 2011 recommendation: N/A
• Current recommendation: This is a term that can mean a variety of different things.  From my perspective, for example, it means "library". Not sure if we should change it. (Sue)
  • Sue: I'm still at a loss about this one.  Synonyms for repository (according to Roget's) are:
    • archive
    • depository
    • storehouse
    • depot
    • magazine
    • safe
    • stockroom
    • vault
    • storage place
    • store room
  • Different institutions probably use the functionality differently. Maybe some configurable hover <abbr> text would be useful for institutions to define Repositories in the way they are using it. —TK
    • • I agree with TK here. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel; "repository" is a common word which covers all of those more specific terms and doesn't bear any additional meanings likely to confuse a researcher.—CS
  • I've never experienced any confusion with researchers in regards to the term repository. We use the term because while some of our special collections units reside in free standing libraries with their own reading rooms, some of our special collections units share a single library and reading room.  Repository is generic enough that it works for a particular special collections department that could be within a library that may house three departments or it is a special collections unit that stands alone.  I think repository is a fine choice for a default term but perhaps, since it is a phrase I heard used by several people in the call, the term "unit" or "collections unit" is functional. - Jessica Crouch
  • We use "Repository" currently and I have never heard anyone being confused about that term.  Confused about many other terms, but not that one.–Susan Pyzynski

...

• 2011 recommendation: N/A
• Current recommendation: I'm still not sure what this even means, so not sure what to do with this.  Repository site map?
  • This seems to be functionality that different institutions can use in very different ways, similar to Repositories above.
  • After reading Scott's comments, I'm concluding that Classifications refers to record groups.  This is also a fairly technical term that is only common to records managers and institutional archivists, so I think we will need someone who uses classifications to weigh in with a more user-friendly term (Sue)
  • I would just ask for those of us who don't use it, we can suppress this in our implementation of the front-end.–Susan Pyzynski
  • After reading through the comments I would favor "record groups" over classification, while making the label customizable. (Matt Francis)

Object-Level

Summary

• Recommendation: Administrative Info
  • Reasoning: Summary sounds too much like what one would find in an abstract. This information is of little use to archives users, except the identifier.
• Summary of what? I dont think the Admin info (e.g., Descriptive Rules) is helpful for patrons.  Keeping collection identifier is a good idea.
  • I vote for getting rid of Administrative info at the object level.  Its pointless (as I tried to point out).  Pulling different info in here, and then labeling it Summary, or even Scope and Contents, would be applicable.  Again, it will depend on what information we choose to actually display here (Sue)
  • While I agree that some of the information under the "summary" is not the most relevant at an object level, I do think that the "conditions governing access" and "conditions governing use" fields can be worthwhile to present at an object level...though by no means do I think they have to appear under a section called "Summary or "Administrative Info". Of course, to take full advantage of displaying these fields it would need to be set-up to inherit from the nearest higher level when there is not data present at the object level. (Matt Francis)

...