[Archivesspace_Users_Group] "Bible" and other titles (encoding analog 130, 830) in ArchivesSpace
mark.custer at yale.edu
Thu Jan 21 17:49:51 EST 2016
All good points. We ran into this issue with the AT, as well. Right now, we just rely on the MARC records for that information (keeping it bibliographic where those standards are better upheld).
Another wrinkle: in EAD3, the title field was removed as a valid child of origination. I believe the suggestion there was to use "name" instead for the mapping process. Here's a link to the EAD3 tag library, http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/gammaEAD3TagLibrary.pdf
From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Angela Kroeger
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] "Bible" and other titles (encoding analog 130, 830) in ArchivesSpace
Kate Bowers asked, "Does anyone have an ArchivesSpace solution for non-agent non-subject "added entries" such as uniform titles in ArchivesSpace?"
We've added them as subjects with a type of uniform title. I think uniform title is one of the default options for the type dropbox, not something we added locally.
In the MARCXML export, this converted to a 630. I don't know how to make the equivalent of a 130 or 830, so this probably isn't the solution you're looking for. But it is the only thing resembling a uniform title I've been able to find in ArchivesSpace.
We haven't had a situation where we've needed the equivalent of a 130 or 830, as those are fairly bibliocentric. Any monographs and serials in our collection are added to our ILS, while only archival collections with locally-supplied titles (John Doe papers, Widget Company records, etc.) are added to ArchivesSpace. But I recognize that other institutions may be using ArchivesSpace very differently.
One potential "ideal" solution might be to have title records in ArchivesSpace, akin to subject and agent records. The title record could be defined by types such as uniform title, series title, serial title, etc. I don't know how feasible that would be, or if that would cause unforeseen problems.
Another potential solution would be to have the ability to include multiple title forms in a record (resource or component). This could be modeled off of the way multiple name forms are handled in agent records, where you have a button to select which name form is authoritative. In a resource or component record with multiple title forms, you could define them variously to be a uniform title, transcribed title, archivist-supplied title, etc. But there may be additional complexities there, as well.
akroeger at unomaha.edu<mailto:akroeger at unomaha.edu>
Archives and Special Collections Associate
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L. Criss Library
University of Nebraska at Omaha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Archivesspace_Users_Group