[Archivesspace_Users_Group] different date models for Agents vs Accessions, Resources, Archival Objects?

[Nic Stanton-Roark]

Hi all,

I will just chime in to say that we have found the new date functions in
agents hugely helpful with describing local sources, and are very much
looking forward to being able to use those functions in describing works,
especially series and file components.

<https://anderson.edu/>

NIC DON STANTON-ROARK

Archivist

Nicholson Library

o: 765.641.4285

He/Him

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender
immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete
this email from your system.


On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 12:29 PM Christine Di Bella <
christine.dibella at lyrasis.org> wrote:

> Hello Ron,
>
>
>
> The divergence of the two date models within ArchivesSpace did come about
> with the work on the Agents module. While the plan is to eventually move
> other record types for which it makes sense to the same model (there are
> some related requests at
> https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1475 and
> https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-380), because dates are so
> complex and because the agents work was underway already, we treated the
> work on dates associated with agents as a first step. The motivation for
> the change was specific to the EAC-CPF standard, though it has broader
> applicability with EAD as well.
>
>
>
> I don’t have a specific timeframe for moving other dates in the
> application to this model right now. One of our thoughts in staging this
> date transition was that we wanted to get feedback on the agents dates
> piece before taking the even larger step of moving the other record types
> (and migrating the associated data) to that model. We haven’t received much
> feedback on the agents yet, possibly because a lot of people haven’t
> upgraded to a 3.x version yet or possibly because the new date model meets
> their needs just fine. We are currently reviewing prioritized projects
> against capacity in light of staffing changes and I intend to share more
> information and an updated roadmap soon.
>
>
>
> I hope that helps. If you have other questions, or if anyone here has
> background or feedback specific to the agents date model, we’d be glad to
> have them.
>
>
>
> Christine
>
>
>
> Christine Di Bella
>
> ArchivesSpace Program Manager
>
> christine.dibella at lyrasis.org
>
> 800.999.8558 x2905
>
> 678-235-2905
>
>
>
> [image: ASpaceOrgHomeMedium]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org <
> archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> *On Behalf Of *Ron
> Van den Branden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 5, 2022 9:56 AM
> *To:* archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org
> *Subject:* [Archivesspace_Users_Group] different date models for Agents
> vs Accessions, Resources, Archival Objects?
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I'm wondering why different date models exist for different record types
> in ArchivesSpace:
>
>
>
>    - Accessions + Resources/Archival Objects:
>       - Date Certainty: general certainty qualifier: "Approximate",
>       "Inferred", "Questionable"
>    - Agents:
>       - Date Certainty: general certainty qualifier: "Approximate",
>       "Inferred", "Questionable"
>       - Standardized Date Type: specific qualifier for both Begin and End
>       date: "Standard", "Not Before", "Not After"
>
>
>
> The extra field Standardized Date Type is occurring consistently for all
> date fields in the Agents module.
>
>
>
> This raises some questions:
>
>
>
>    - What's the motivation for this difference? Is it standards-based,
>    and does EAC-CPF allow for more detail than EAD? Or is is because the
>    Agents module has been reworked more recently?
>    - In the latter case, is any harmonization foreseen for the date
>    fields in Accessions and Resources/Archival Objects? If so, is there a time
>    frame?
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your thoughts!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> *Ron Van den Branden | functioneel analist - applicatiebeheerder
> Letterenhuis*
>
> Stad Antwerpen | Talentontwikkeling en Vrijetijdsbeleving |  Musea en
> Erfgoed
>
> Minderbroedersstraat 22, 2000 Antwerpen
>
> ✉ Grote Markt 1, 2000 Antwerpen
>
> gsm +32 0485 02 80 50 | tel. +32 3 222 93 30
>
> letterenhuis.be <http://www.letterenhuis.be/> | instagram
> <https://www.instagram.com/letterenhuis/> | facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/Letterenhuis>
>
>
>
> *Proclaimer*
>
> Vergissen is menselijk. Dus als deze e-mail, samen met eventuele bijlagen,
> niet voor u bestemd is, vragen we u vriendelijk om dat te melden aan de
> afzender. Deze e-mail en de bijlagen zijn namelijk officiële documenten van
> de stad Antwerpen. Ze kunnen vertrouwelijke of persoonlijke informatie
> bevatten. Als stad nemen we privacy heel serieus en willen we als een goede
> huisvader waken over de vertrouwelijkheid van documenten. Als u dit bericht
> per vergissing hebt ontvangen of ergens hebt gevonden, wees dan zo eerlijk
> om het meteen te verwijderen en het niet verder te verspreiden of te
> kopiëren.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list
> Archivesspace_Users_Group at lyralists.lyrasis.org
> http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20221006/92696207/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20221006/92696207/attachment.jpg>