[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Metadata Standards AS Online Forum presentation - call for feedback

[Kevin W. Schlottmann]

Dear ArchivesSpace community,

The Metadata Standards subgroup of the Technical Advisory Committee will be
presenting
<https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/3033006097/TAC-MD+AS+Online+Forum+2022>
at the ArchivesSpace Online Forum
<https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ADC/pages/3036282881/ArchivesSpace+Online+Forum+2022>
on Tuesday, March 22 at 9am EST.

During our discussion we will talk about how we prioritize support for
various standards
<https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/3003252776/Draft+of+Tiers+of+Support>
and share news about our ongoing work on the MARC importer and the current
MARC import mappings
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17zhNYoR2kYxfsm5bXBwoJN9YcRY_eSR3fIPKCUz4m0Q/edit#gid=1527709562>
.

We are also looking for community feedback on a specific metadata question,
below. Please consider providing feedback beforehand by email to
kws2126 at columbia.edu. Sample MARC records would be welcome! You may also
offer your thoughts during the session.

Issue: Improving the MARC 300 field
<https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd300.html> import behavior

Do you have MARC records for your archival holdings? Then you probably have
300 fields. The MARC 300 “Physical Description” field contains extent
information critical for archival control of material, like 34 linear feet,
or 12 boxes (10 cubic feet).

The current AS MARC importer
<https://github.com/archivesspace/archivesspace/blob/master/backend/app/converters/lib/marcxml_bib_base_map.rb#L868>
only parses the 300 field according to one very specific pattern, and
otherwise defaults to “1 linear feet.” This means that anyone doing bulk
import of MARC records may be silently wiping out their archivist-supplied
extents without realizing it. A recent ticket
<https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1260> also noted that 300$f
fields are ignored entirely.

What we would like from the community is how your 300 fields are
structured, and how you would want 300 fields parsed on import. Sample data
will help us make recommendations on what should be happening. For example,
this is a common construction (from LC) that is NOT handled by the MARC
importer:

300 ǂa 5 ǂf boxes ǂa (3 ǂf linear ft.)

A discussion based on that sample might be: Should this pattern be
supported? How should this be parsed?  How should all of that punctuation
be handled?

The Metadata Standards subgroup will take what it learns and develop a
specification for the desired behavior, but we need to hear from you.

Sent with apologies for cross-posting.

Best,

Kevin

--

Kevin Schlottmann

Head of Archives Processing

Rare Book & Manuscript Library

Butler Library, Room 801

Columbia University

Pronouns: he/him/his

535 W. 114th St., New York, NY  10027

(212) 854-8483
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20220223/eca457f0/attachment.html>