2024-01-29 Metadata meeting notes
Call Information
Monday, January 29, 2024
12:00pm EST
https://psu.zoom.us/j/4500574255?pwd=N3RFcE1IYS92UjhPNm5iRGZKWlQxUT09
Participants
@Jacqueline Asaro
@Diane Biunno
@Kate Bowers
@Kevin Clair
@Regine Heberlein
@Elizabeth Roke
With Special guest Tyler Wade with Regine at Princeton
Regrets
Notetaker
Jacqueline Devereaux Asaro
Quick Links
Google drive space: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1RQftm8w4XkNISQHVbtjr6sNY4_iyyXMV
Published import/export AS standard:
The MARC importer: Spreadsheet | Code
EAD 2002 importer: Spreadsheet | Code
Regine’s version of the EAD 2002 import mapping:
Jira tickets: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/ANW/issues
Agenda
Time | Item | Notes |
|---|---|---|
5 minutes | Introduction | Minutes from last meeting – any updates or corrections? |
15 minutes | Updates on MARC importer/exporter work | @Kate Bowers @Elizabeth Roke Goal: Screen grab MARC, write JIRA ticket for MARC importer: use existing map, but add switch so that EVERY MARC field can get into AS. Kate was focusing on all the possible fields Originally has the MARC xml from ASpace Took every field from MARC, examined it grabbed tag, field name If we want to bring it into ASpace, can use field name as the note label to make things easier Boiled down to a few task categories. For example, if ingested MARC want to know the original field or what it was called (control number) and then get the O3 5 field, 002 is unassigned but if someone wants to include this data, the idea is to input it as a general note and have it as a tag number, it could let you know where the data came from, no metadata left behind Some of them retain existing fields, but also deciding what to not map out The debate of what to do with books, ingesting as LOC call numbers or try to map as something else The column is the best attempt at choosing different options for mapping Bring it in as a general note, alternate note, or bring it in as a tag number Conceivably could have in every title, like key title is already in existing mapping, but other titles may not have been treated, add to existing may be good for that A 4th category could be appended to the existing mapping or possibly using some scenarios such as 6 or 7 Kate suggested the switch, for the old map, new map, or just local fields Usually good practice for cleaning up data before ingest into the system Elizabeth says the existing mapping is core metadata that maps to core standards in the archival field In the original say clean up, but core is the standard archival metadata to put into data….such as switch core map “all fields” This other option could be for larger staffed institutions, could upload the full messy data Kate, one area of interest is having the primary agent specified Seems to be a constant issue is 9xx field, throws things into that sometimes Kevin: wants to know what happens after the records come in….what about the MARC fields that you don’t know what to do Elizabeth: The original intent always was a log that would say info that was imported (or what wasn’t imported) Elizabeth, with second all encompassing “dirty” because everything would be added to ASpace In the past, it was hard to code what didn’t get transferred….they pushed back against having that Kate, any worries with exporting MARC? Elizabeth, concerned to have a valid MARC record exported…start with DACs it says exactly what MARC fields Regine, mentioned some issues with permissiveness of EAD….indicator 7 subfield 2 when a value wasn’t on the list such as VIAF, this creates some issues and not valid in MARC As the user do you need to know that (like VIAF) won’t export correctly Kevin, with something like VIAF can we do 1 ticket on that? Kate, the issue with VIAF as a cluster or aggregator…an issue that it is not a category Regine, thinks it is very important to export for catalog integrations….wants to avoid post processing Kevin, have we ever done a survey of the community for post processing that is done on with post export of MARC record Kate, OCLC tends to be more strict Elizabeth, stick with the basic MARC we want it to validate and not be “good” Regine, Control with a sense of “profile” possibly less permissions to not let them add VIAF this could help to have profiles for certain people uploading The balance between larger institutions and smaller institutions Kate, for instance looking at something like a 505 note and having it with Scope and Contents note Kevin, Denver’s MARC customization leaves MARC 336-338 (the RDA content/media/carrier fields) unspecified |
15 minutes | All – Review Column M before the meeting and come prepared with comments (if any). Column L finished and column M partially populated based on L (@Regine Heberlein ) Questions (feel free to add your own!):
| |
20 minutes | Other agenda items? |
|
5 minutes | Announcements |
|