Date and Time
Thursday 02/13/20, 3pm Eastern
Zoom URL
https://lyrasis.zoom.us/j/897871318
Participants
James Griffin (Unlicensed) (Note taker)
Goals
Discussion topics
Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
5 min | Ice Breaker Question: Favorite vacation spot | ||
10 min | Guest: Laney McGlohon (Unlicensed) | “Testing importing/exporting test records and comparing the outcomes to the import/export Excel spreadsheet on the website. We also talked about coming at it from the other direction, by looking at the code and potentially adding comments to the code explaining the data mapping behavior, which would serve the dual purpose of explaining to a non-developer what is happening, and also serving as a prompt to have devs let the MD subgroup know when a change is made.” | |
15 min | Standing item: review metadata tickets | Specific tickets =flagged for us by Christine Di Bella https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-805 I (Kevin) think the last comment in the ticket is correct (Nancy Kennedy’s); let’s review and comment if we agree. | |
5 min | Language of Description EAD Export issue update | https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-969 Cory Nimer confirmed this was likely an oversight. See below for a proposed response. | |
10 min | Priority fields | Set of priority fields for both MARC and EAD. See below for proposed references (are the better / more recent sources for EAD?) and MARC fields. | |
5 min | Anything else? |
Notes
Metadata Tickets
Proposed answer for ANW-969:
The metadata standards subgroup examined this ticket. The developers correctly implemented the new language specification as written. However, we consulted with Cory Nimer, the primary author of the new language spec, and he suggested that in this particular case (EAD2002 Language of Description export), the spec is incorrect. Req-4 for Language of Description should have been written similarly to Req-5 for Language of Materials, where the EAD2002 export behavior of language of description mimics that of language of materials, basically: 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.The subgroup proposes the following guideline:
The system shall export Language of Description, Script of Description, and Language of Description Note field content in EAD2002 records, when available.
If a Language of Description Note is available, export only that:
<langusage>[Language of Description Note, if any]</langusage>
If no Language of Description Note is available, export the Language field translation values for the Language and Script subrecord, separated by commas, enclosed in a <language> element with associated @langcode and @scriptcode attribute values, and terminated by a period.
<langusage>Description is written in:
<language langcode="[Language of Description (code value)]">[Language of Description (translation value)]</language> <script scriptcode="[(Script of Description (code value))]">
[Script of Description (translation value)].</script>
</langusage>
<langusage>Description is written in:
<language langcode="eng">English</language> <script scriptcode="Latn">
(Latin)</script>.
</langusage>
Priority Fields
EAD Tag usage study:
http://slis.simmons.edu/blogs/kmwisser/files/2015/06/americanArchivist2013.pdf
MARC Tag Usage:
https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2010/2010-06.pdf
Based on these two references and common, I think we can come up with a reasonable set of commonly-used MARC and EAD2002 tags for which we can verify import and export in this TAC term.
MARC
001, 008, 040, 1XX, 245, 300, 351, 500, 506, 520, 524, 545, 555, 541, 546, 583, 561, 6XX, 7XX
From:
Table 2.1: MARC tags occurring in 20% or more of WorldCat records; Table 2.7: Mixed materials: Tags used more heavily than in WorldCat as a whole; some common sense
EAD2002
eadheader and all children; all tags above 10% in tables 10, 11, and 12 (archdesc/did); all tags above 50% in tables 17 and 19 (archdesc/dsc).