2022-01-27 and 2022-02-03 Metadata meeting notes

Owned by Valerie Addonizio
Last updated: Mar 09, 2022 by Elizabeth Roke
7 min read

 

Microsoft Teams meeting

Click here to join the meeting

Participants

  • @Elizabeth Roke

  • @Valerie Addonizio

  • @Kevin Schlottmann

  • @Jared Campbell - regrets

  • @Regine Heberlein

Minutes

  • @Valerie Addonizio

Quick links

Current Work Plan

2021-2022 Metadata Sub-team Work Plan

Previous Agendas

2021-08-19 Metadata meeting notes

2021-09-16 Metadata meeting notes

2021-10-20 Metadata meeting notes

2021-11-11 Metadata meeting notes

2021-12-09 Metadata meeting notes

Discussion Topics

Time

Item

Notes

Time

Item

Notes

5 mins

Intro

Two meetings back to back, one agenda (this one); James' resignation from TAC; new meeting time?

 

AS Online Forum: March 21-22, 2022

Presenting was one of our workplan goals for this term. Please review our preexisting page for 2022 Online Forum Ideas and Questions

But now the rubber hits the road! We should:

  1. Confirm that we are presenting

  2. Confirm what we are presenting

  3. Brainstorm how to net feedback

  4. Assign responsibilities

 

Records in Context

Please see your email (subject line Re: TAC/UAC RiC call for comments) for background on this agenda item.

  • We cannot comment on a draft

  • Put we want this topic put in this year’s retrospective because this group absolutely must render an opinion on this at some point

 

Tiers of Support

Please review and comment here: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/l/c/17RXGJP7

Goal is to publish this by the end of term.

Background: This was an effort that partly pre-dated my work on TAC-MD and is an entirely new topic for some. The point of this document is to state what standards AS supports and more significantly, to what degree they are supported. The definitions and explanations are a distillation of past conversations, while the actual list of standards themselves is a holdover from last term or the term before, and is something we will revisit. For example, is it time that EAC-CPF be upgraded to Tier 1 support? Does the talk around EAD4 mean we leave EAD3 Tier 2? Etc.

 

MARC importer documentation and progress

We are not finished with MARC yet!

This topic is especially significant for the AS Online Forum as being able to present a list of things being removed, a list of things being added, and the new mapping will all be significant preparations.

  • Elizabeth has included filtered views which are awesome and give a top-down look at what does map to DACS and what does not. Any line currently highlighted in yellow was not on the last published version of this spreadsheet.

  • Since the core mapping is complete, the next step is to go into the core code and see what is supported that isn’t documented, and what is documented that isn’t supported. Also, once that is complete, reach out to Christine to ask her how she wants this (short of just creating a huge batch of tickets). Kevin suggested the DACS mapping be included in those tickets, to tie the room together.

 

MARC 510 versus 581

@Kevin Schlottmann Review of an ongoing discussion re: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1350

Above was 2022-01-27; below was 2022-02-03

 

Updates from last time

(one whole week later)

  • @Elizabeth Roke Is looking for feedback: Everything that isn’t highlighted is in the code correctly.  The highlights are things that are missing in the code.  Could someone double-check my mappings to AS?  I’m a little unsure as to the data model, so some of the note types might not be using the correct terminology.  There’s only a couple of these, so it would be great if someone had time to do it this week and I can then work on getting the code amended.  Here’s the spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12qxgYtkGi21FeEXbIcekQowVaxZvRWmCRiZvvlGE58U/edit#gid=1527709562

    • Also her question: is it our intention to pull the non-core elements out of the current mappings?  I can’t remember if we were looking for community feedback on this before we did it.

    • My recollection is that we’re keeping the non-core elements in the code, changing their color, stating that we’re doing this at the online forum, and then (this part I’m speculating on, we haven’t discussed it) maybe we can meet with Christine on the plan for actually removing them and keeping a version of the mapping for posterity.

    • The review that Elizabeth needed was completed during the meeting

  • @Kevin Schlottmann Any concerns since last meeting?

  • @Valerie Addonizio

    • Draft of Tiers of Support going once…. going twice.,..

    • See @Elizabeth Roke Action item below

    • This revealed that TAC-MD was approached about EAC changes beforehand and we declined, so we should state that we’ve learned, gotten our footing, and would like to be included in the future

    • Meeting times? Render your verdict on whether you can schedule meetings two hours later (9am PST/12pm EST), three hours later (10am/1pm), or four hours later (11am/2pm EST) on the same days?

      • Minutes: Noon-1pm Eastern looks like it will work @Valerie Addonizio checked with Jared and changed the meeting time

    • Doodle for March 3rd

      • Thank you!

    • Minutes: Bumped to next meeting: There are new matches in your subscription to changes in archivesspace/archivesspace to files that match backend/app/converters/lib/marcxml_bib_base_map.rb!

      Here's what changed:

 

New/Ongoing ticket review

Check for new tickets.

In the last meeting we reviewed ANW-547: As an archivist, I would like to associate multiple identifiers with resources/objects and export it in EADAwaiting More Information and we had the following comments. Another review of this ticket is a low priority (at this time) given the items above.

  • Minutes: Bumped to next meeting

This was particularly difficult. There is a lot in here, would be better broken up into multiple user stories.

Reading this as the ability to emulate the repeatable unitid with a type attribute in EAD.

Better argument at the archival object level because there are some ways to work around this in Resources with the use of plugins.

Different use case of managing agents because there are different authority records, but ArchivesSpace should be the database of record.

Hesitance about prioritizing giving intellectual records multiple identifiers.

No solid conclusion today, will continue to revisit.

 

Kevin’s drafted ticket

Kevin sent us a draft of a ticket requesting that the AS importer code confirm the elements that were handled by an ingest process, allowing users an assessment of what was not handled. Here is his draft, below:

  • Minutes: We reviewed why we reversed this ticket; I had to leave the meeting before a final conclusion on whether to remove the detailed reporting of what fields were mapped

As a user, I would like all importers to generate a report of every element from a source record that is handled.  I would like this functionality for all imported record types (MARC, EAD, EAC-CPF, csv). 

For example, if I'm importing a MARCXML record with a 245 field, subfield a, I would like an indication that the field was handled by the importer.  If possible, noting *where* it was imported would be desirable as well. For example, 245$a -> Title.

This idea came up in the Metadata Standards subgroup as we were reflecting on all the data that the importers silently skip. Metadata Standards plans to propose that the importers handle fewer elements (so it is easier to document and maintain), meaning the importance of this functionality will increase. 

We would also like whatever report is generated to encourage the user to check the report against the source record, to identify any skipped fields. 

If this is something that could be addressed, Metadata Standards would be happy to provide more specific examples and input.

 

Missing retrospectives

Elizabeth let me know that we are missing retrospectives from the Wiki. I raised this question and Christine said that she, as the admin, does have access to the deleted pages, but asked that we try and confirm what is missing given that Metadata hasn’t been around for long and that retrospectives may have been appended to other pages.

We have only been around for two terms prior to this one:

  1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/2675310594 for 2020-2021

  2. There was a draft of one here https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/1314684941 was this the final for 2019-2020?

  • Minutes: We do still think we are missing the 2019-2020 retrospective by Dallas Pillen, @Valerie Addonizio alerted Christine

 

EAD Mapping reorganization

Purely optional: Opening the floor to @Regine Heberlein to show us her continuing work and invite comments.

5 min

Next steps/homework

 

Action Items

@Kevin Schlottmann Online Forum: Taking the lead on MARC questions and funneling data from the community
@Elizabeth Roke Online Forum: Taking the lead on the MARC spreadsheet and DACS mapping, also review 2021-2022 Metadata Sub-team Work Plan for related items
@Elizabeth Roke Feedback on this statement paragraph stating what we hope our role to be moving forward: that TAC-MD should be consulted in any change that includes an external standard: “Metadata Standards expects to contribute in a proactive role concerning the implementation or support of external standards in ArchivesSpace, meaning that the subteam should be included in any discussion or final decisions about whether, how, and to what degree to support an external standard in ArchivesSpace.”
@Elizabeth Roke Will add a column of repeatable fields to the MARC spreadsheet, which will turn into a Jira about supporting repeatable fields
@Kevin Schlottmann Minor edits to the draft of your ticket (did we find clarity on this?)
@Valerie Addonizio Create page to present off of https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/3033006097
@Valerie AddonizioFind the Resource JSON model and share with Elizabeth Not so useful; sent list of required fields instead

Long term Action Items (by or at end of term)

@Elizabeth Roke Contact Mark about the EAD4 questions and invite him to a future meeting
@Elizabeth Roke and @Valerie Addonizio Alert Christine to the updated version of the MARC importer mapping + inquire about how they might want the new tickets delivered (and good suggestion from Kevin to include the DACS mapping element in the ticket creation). Also inquire about keeping an older version of the mapping for posterity.
@Elizabeth Roke And @Valerie Addonizio Contact Christine about publishing the Draft of Tiers of Support and our stance on being included upstream in decisions that effect external standards
@Valerie Addonizio Put RiC review in the notes in our retrospective. Essentially we know we absolutely must render a verdict on this, but we decline to do so on a draft. We have doubts about the stated aspirations (transmission standard, descriptive standard, one ring to rule them all). We want to be included in the decision of how ASpace reacts, and not just the recipients of said decision.
@Valerie Addonizio Put our statement about being included upstream in the notes in our retrospective

Minutes

Minutes are included in agenda, above.