[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Collection management - processing status disappeared...

Prom, Christopher John prom at illinois.edu
Wed Feb 17 11:42:51 EST 2016


To answer the archon specific question, it did not have that a processing status field (although I agree it would have been very helpful if it had!)

Archon has a ‘processing priority value and the ‘processing status’ could be inferred, to a certain extent from the relationship between the ‘received extent’ and  ‘unprocessed extent’ fields on Archon's accession record.  For example, if the former was set to 10 CF and the latter to 0 CF, you could infer it was processed.  But these latter values were never heavily used in Archon even here at Illinois, and the migration tool does not migrate them, since at the time I developed the mapping I could not figure out a good way to handle them.  Since no one has never asked me why they are missing, I assume the strategy of not migrating them made a certain amount of sense ;)

Chris Prom

On Feb 17, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Bowers, Kate A. <kate_bowers at harvard.edu<mailto:kate_bowers at harvard.edu>> wrote:

I’m not sure that incorporating “reverse migration” for all into re-establishing the disappeared functionality would be wise.  Rather a one-time “reversion helper” plug-in, that can be optionally executed by an ArchivesSpace repository, is better.

Here’s my thinking

1) Less work means more likelihood of getting the basic, vital functionality of “processing status” back into collection management records more quickly.  By this I mean: the table is still there with the data in it (at least for AT migrations).  Just put it back into the interface and for users and admins.

2) Status does not equal event.  Status *may* be inferred from *some* events.

3) Individual implementers have control over their drop-down lists, thus, each type of event would have to be evaluated for its real-world meaning vis-a-vis processing status. Automated monkeying might obfuscate the actual processing status. There is no way to know what can be automated across the board. Ergo, individual repositories have to govern these changes.

4) Individual implementers may not need “reverse migration” and the labor might be in excess of the work needed to simply apply processing statuses to accessions by hand.  Questions to evaluate the need include: a) How much work would be involved in creating “reverse migration”? b) As far as I can tell, processing statuses that migrated from AT are still there. For many repositories, changing processing status may not be that labor-intensive—it could be that not many accessions have been processed between migration and implementation.  c)   Did Archon have processing status?  If so, were they also retained? d) How many repositories changed the default drop-downs for event records?


Kate Bowers
Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards
Harvard University Archives
kate_bowers at harvard.edu<mailto:megan_sniffin-marinoff at harvard.edu>
voice: (617) 384-7787
fax: (617) 495-8011
web: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.eresource:archives
Twitter: @k8_bowers

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Runyon, Carolyn
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:18 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Collection management - processing status disappeared...

Chris, I’m going to answer two of the questions you posed in yesterday’s email according to UTC’s preference.

  *   Yes, we would like to see processing event records migrated back to their original collection_management records and then removed.
  *   Yes, we like to see processing tracked in collection_management only and have it removed as an option in events.


Carolyn Runyon
Assistant Head of Collection Services and Director of Special Collections
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Library
615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga, TN  37403
Carolyn-Runyon at utc.edu<mailto:Carolyn-Runyon at utc.edu>, (423) 425-4503
Dept. 6456, LIB 439D

On Feb 15, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Chris Fitzpatrick <Chris.Fitzpatrick at lyrasis.org<mailto:Chris.Fitzpatrick at lyrasis.org>> wrote:

One thing I am curious about is are people wanting to have this processing_status_id field added to the collection_management table, but are you wanting to have these event records migrated back to collection_management records and then removed ( the migration to make this change moved the data from the collection_management table into events) ? Are you wanting to do away with the processing status in events completely?

Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list
Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20160217/bfbeccc0/attachment.html>

More information about the Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list