[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Accruals/related accesions

Kari R Smith smithkr at mit.edu
Fri Mar 31 09:32:34 EDT 2017

Hi Olivia,
Can you explain more about how you are distinguishing between accessions that are accruals from those that are not?

Kari R. Smith
Digital Archivist and Program Head for Born-digital Archives
Institute Archives and Special Collections
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts
617.253.5690   smithkr at mit.edu   http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/  @karirene69

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org [mailto:archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org] On Behalf Of Olivia S Solis
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:06 PM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
Subject: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Accruals/related accesions

Hello all,

We at the Briscoe are pretty far along the path to implementing ASpace, but have a number of unresolved issues. One being we are still figuring out how to deal with our accessions that are accruals. The Initially, we had thought to have all accessions in an accrual be related accessions with a sibling relationship. I ran a test with 3 collections: Collection 1, Collection 2, and Collection 3. Steps:

1) Link Collection 1 and Collection 2 as related accessions/siblings.
2) Link Collection 1 and Collection 3 as related accessions/siblings.

My assumption was that Collection 2 and Collection 3 would automatically be related as siblings, but this was not the case. Is this behavior a known issue or is there some logic behind this? Am I missing something? I would think that ASpace would consider all the accessions in a daisy-chained series of siblings as siblings of each other. If this is not the case, the maintenance in connecting 20 related accessions/sibling records would be enormous.

Nonetheless this led me to decide it might be better to have the first accession in the series of accruals be considered the parent and all the additional accessions be considered related accessions/forms part of the parent/first accrual. I ran another test:

1) Create Collection 4 and spawn an accession from it, Collection 5.
2) Connect the two as related accessions, with Collection 5 designated a child of Collection 4.
3) Spawn a resource from Collection 4, and check related accession.

In the spawned resource, only Collection 4 was linked as a related accession in the newly spawned resource. I would have expected Collection 5 to be linked as a related accession in the resource as well. Again, same question. Is this a known issue, or is there some logic behind this? We'd like to indicate all source accessions that are part of the accrual in the related resource records. It would seem like the related accessions should automatically funnel in as related accessions in the resource.

How are some of you representing accruals in ArchivesSpace? Have you encountered any problems with your decisions, and did what was the logic of why you decided to go the route that you did?


Olivia Solis, MSIS
Metadata Coordinator
Dolph Briscoe Center for American History
The University of Texas at Austin
2300 Red River St. Stop D1100
Austin TX, 78712-1426
(512) 232-8013
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20170331/86a2bab7/attachment.html>

More information about the Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list