2020-01-09 Meeting Notes

Date and Time

Thursday 01/09/20, 3pm Eastern

Zoom URL

https://lyrasis.zoom.us/j/897871318

Participants

• Kevin Schlottmann

• James Griffin (Unlicensed) (Note taker)

• Bria Lynn Parker (Unlicensed)

• Christine Di Bella

• Daniel Michelson

• Jared Campbell

• Wiedeman, Gregory

• Dallas Pillen

Goals

• Work Plan

Discussion topics

Action items

Notes

Introductions

Metadata Tickets

Proposed reply for https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-974

“As Rachel notes correctly, the 044 is incorrect, since country of publication is determined at the repository level and in AS there can only be one. Per MARC rules therefore the country code should (and is, by AS) encoded only in the 008, p15-17.  Light testing indicates that the country codes are being exported correctly, including the US code ‘xxu’ as discussed in ANW-673.

The metadata subgroup of TAC agrees with the reporter and recommends that the 044 field be removed from the MARC exporter.”

Other comments:

The 008 AS->Marc needs to be updated (I made a note in our Google sheet)
In the sandbox (2.7.0), I created a test repo with the country as Germany.  The MARC export code to the 008 and 044 is de. The code is correct. The placement in the 008 is correct.

MARC 008 definition: https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008.html

MARC 044 definition: https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd044.html

MARC country code list: http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/mergedProjects/councod/councod/contents.htm

Looking at the spec, current AS->EAD2002 behavior matches the implementation request (encoded language of description is NOT exported to EAD2002; only the free-text language of description is exported).  I also note that langusage is optional in EAD2002, and not required by DACS(!). 

All agreed to this proposed solution, this will be posted to the JIRA Issue on 01/10/19

Question: What is the process for these types of Issues for Dev. Pri.?

For something like this when the Issue is submitted, and then it is delivered to this Sub-Team, there is enough information now to know that this MARC field should be suppressed

Dev. Pri. shouldn’t need any additional information, and this would be routed as “ready for implementation”

Prioritization should be minor for this issue, we want to ensure that the Co-Chair for Dev. Pri. is okay with this

Maybe it does make sense for this to be placed into the queue for Dev. Pri. - the ticket itself does not need priority if that is the case

Proposed Reply for https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-969

We should discuss, but if this were open for a do-over, I would propose that the EAD2002 export behavior of language of description mimic that of language of materials (in short, if a free-text note exists export that, otherwise export the translation of the encoded language as a text strings with the codes in attributes, with some boilerplate prepended.   E.g.:

<langusage> Finding aid written in:  <language langcode="[Language (code value)]" scriptcode="[Script (code value)]">[Language (translation value)]​</language></language>

However, the spec appears to have been drafted pretty carefully, so perhaps we should reach out to Corey Nimer and see if this was intentional.

Spec (see PDF linked in ticket): https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-697

EAD:  https://www.loc.gov/ead/tglib/elements/langusage.html

DACS:  https://www2.archivists.org/standards/DACS/part_I/chapter_4/5_languages_and_scripts_of_the_material

Feedback from the Sub-Team:

This is a weird history, as people have not encoded language; They have chosen to use mixed content

Language of description is not a DACS elements; Only language of material is

We should still attempt to export this information in a structured way

We’re encoding EADs with mixed content given that the toolkit encoded it as such

EAD3 was the intended version for enhanced support for extended language encoding

EAD2002 is far more restrictive in structure

Next steps: Reach out to Corey to determine if there was any intent here, and if there was, determine what the next step would be for the Sub-Team

Another Ticket: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-805

This was raised by Dev. Pri., but the process for forwarding this to the Metadata Standards was not in place

Issue was how the “published” status should work, it seemed to be that there was a lot of discussion in the comments for this

The interaction between the “published” status for the Digital Object in ArchivesSpace, and how this is encoded within the EAD

This will be added to the agenda for the next scheduled meeting

Ideas from December TAC Meeting

Desire to see us engage with RiC

Blog posts, particularly focusing upon our efforts to engage with the EGAD Steering Group (https://www.ica.org/en/egad-steering-committee-0)

Invite members of the Working Group in order to discuss their work with the TAC

How might we engage with Records in Context in other ways?

Daniel Pitti, the current Chair

There is also another individual who serves as the representative for the US

No members of the Sub-Team have any close relationships with members of the Steering Group

It would make more sense to contact Daniel directly in order to engage with them

Daniel Michelson volunteered to contact Daniel Pitti

This invitation would be for the next joint TAC meeting, and we should check with Maggie first