[Archivesspace_Users_Group] [External Message] Re: Digital Objects as children of Archival Objects

Wed Jul 12 12:22:41 EDT 2023

Just chiming in to say the data model doesn't allow a digital object to be a child of an archival object - only an AO can be a child of an AO.

I totally get what you're saying about the redundancy aspect though. Its frustrating that you have to have both an AO and a DO. I think the DO model might have been represented better as a complex/repeating subrecord of an AO rather than as an analog to a top container. I think the likelihood of someone having an unattached DO described in AS is very? small and I don't think its likely that a DO would be shared across multiple AOs the same way that different things can all be stuffed into a single top container/box. That's my take anyway!

jds
________________________________
From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org <archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> on behalf of Kendall Aughenbaugh <kaughenbaugh at hillwoodmuseum.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] [External Message] Re: Digital Objects as children of Archival Objects

Hi Kate,

There might've been some confusion with my original question. Digital object records are capable of capturing the same descriptive information as the archival object -- the two object types have nearly the same exact sub-records available (digital objects may have several more). I plan to have a digital object for each individual item, with extent, title, date, etc. information included. Our digital objects link out to the asset in our DAM, which includes extended item-level metadata in view. So, there would be no a loss of descriptive information and there would definitely be clarity in the folder-level archival object regarding extent and portion.

Example:
The archival object would be at the folder-level, and the extent sub-record for that archival object would say the folder includes 5 items (images). The date sub-record would explain the full contents are dated between 1971-1981. The children of that archival object would, ideally, be the digital object records for each of those 5 images. The date sub-record for each digital object would describe that singular item, as would the extent sub-record.

The only thing I am looking to avoid is creating an archival object for each digital object, as it seems unnecessary when the digital object record can record the same descriptive information. My question is: Is it possible to have a digital object related to an archival object as a child rather than the digital object only existing as an instance of an archival object?

Cheers,

Kendall

Kendall Aughenbaugh
Digital Services Archivist
202.243.3912
kaughenbaugh at hillwoodmuseum.org<mailto:kaughenbaugh at hillwoodmuseum.org>

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens
4155 Linnean Ave NW
Washington, DC 20008
www.hillwoodmuseum.org<http://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/>

Special Exhibition
[Special Exhibitions]<https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/exhibitions>
Through January 14, 2024

Follow us on Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/HillwoodMuseum> and Instagram<https://www.facebook.com/HillwoodMuseum>
________________________________
From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org <archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> on behalf of Bowers, Kate A. <kate_bowers at harvard.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:24 AM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
Subject: [External Message] Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Digital Objects as children of Archival Objects

If we digitize in part, we describe the digitized part as a child. Even if the description is minimal.

Imagine the researcher! The user interface is going to tell them the archival object has a digital presence. They will go through the digital object thinking they have the whole thing, in ignorance that they have seen only part. Or, they will realize it is a partial digitization, and be disappointed.

Yes, there is a cost to doing this. There is also a cost to NOT doing this.  In the future, how will you find things only digitized in part, if you don’t describe the digitized part?  How will you manage digital content, if you don’t know what it is?

There had to be a selection made to digitize the part, so someone had to tell someone else what parts were to be digitized. Is there any way that you can turn the recording of that selection into a description task?  Even if it is only to make a child that duplicates parent and add “[digitized portion]” at the end of the title.

Kate

From: archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org <archivesspace_users_group-bounces at lyralists.lyrasis.org> On Behalf Of Kendall Aughenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:55 AM
To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org>
Subject: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Digital Objects as children of Archival Objects

Hi all,

Is it possible to attach digital objects as children of archival objects? I'm building out how I want to incorporate digital objects, and I can't get this part figured out.

We typically created finding aids at the folder level -- and I'd prefer to keep it that way -- but we tend to digitize at the item level. I'd like to link individual digital objects as children of their parent folder without having to create an individual item level archival object for each digital one. It feels redundant and unnecessary since the digital object is capable of capturing the same exact information.

My attempt to do this yesterday resulted in 5 digital objects being attached to the folder level archival object, which is OK for now but not ideal. Any ideas?

-K

Kendall Aughenbaugh
Digital Services Archivist
202.243.3912
kaughenbaugh at hillwoodmuseum.org<mailto:kaughenbaugh at hillwoodmuseum.org>

Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens
4155 Linnean Ave NW
Washington, DC 20008
www.hillwoodmuseum.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hillwoodmuseum.org_&d=DwMFAw&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=wwc_Z_TbmWbPFh7My2zRxmrGgCNO-71Fwzlmd8YZVUY&m=rFxtpPupsQU4Y3Zb4JMEGdzhnA3iU-uauteHu7h3BPztakMirDMJ0w9ILgPPPwZs&s=dfv1C1gl_ue0vNWgY7Mon1RZ_i2sKE_ZzQ4zbY48UI0&e=>

Special Exhibition
[Special Exhibitions]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hillwoodmuseum.org_exhibitions&d=DwMFAw&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=wwc_Z_TbmWbPFh7My2zRxmrGgCNO-71Fwzlmd8YZVUY&m=rFxtpPupsQU4Y3Zb4JMEGdzhnA3iU-uauteHu7h3BPztakMirDMJ0w9ILgPPPwZs&s=WMPuwQ0P_HTlyoFuFZZrLwz6ElyLJA2imMyeigyGWH4&e=>
Through January 14, 2024

Follow us on Facebook<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_HillwoodMuseum&d=DwMFAw&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=wwc_Z_TbmWbPFh7My2zRxmrGgCNO-71Fwzlmd8YZVUY&m=rFxtpPupsQU4Y3Zb4JMEGdzhnA3iU-uauteHu7h3BPztakMirDMJ0w9ILgPPPwZs&s=aQsCjvQClfN4iXSk95yMnKeH06uYPlMfbe1X97Cqhak&e=> and Instagram<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_HillwoodMuseum&d=DwMFAw&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=wwc_Z_TbmWbPFh7My2zRxmrGgCNO-71Fwzlmd8YZVUY&m=rFxtpPupsQU4Y3Zb4JMEGdzhnA3iU-uauteHu7h3BPztakMirDMJ0w9ILgPPPwZs&s=aQsCjvQClfN4iXSk95yMnKeH06uYPlMfbe1X97Cqhak&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20230712/0f0f8796/attachment.html>