PACSCL Consortial Survey Initiative Group Training Session February 12, 2008 at The Historical Society of Pennsylvania

Plan for the morning ► Introductions ► The survey method ► The survey database ► BREAK ► Surveying in teams ► Reporting out on surveying experience ► Comments and questions (though both are welcome throughout)

The survey method ► Goals of surveying ► Good/not as good candidates for surveying ► Prior to surveying ► During surveying  The ratings ► After surveying

Goals of surveying ► Gain additional information on the condition and content of individual collections. ► Collect information that can be used for both collection management and intellectual access purposes. ► Develop a central repository of PACSCL collection and assessment data that can be used to inform the development of institutional and consortial priorities and funding proposals.

Good candidates for surveying ► Completely unprocessed collections in just about any physical format, as long as they are managed archivally. ► Accruals to processed collections. ► Collections that are partially processed or done to an earlier standard that you no longer consider adequate (“underprocessed”). ► Collections that are partially described or done to an earlier standard that you no longer consider adequate (“underdescribed”).

Not as good candidates for surveying ► Single items or very small collections that would be better served by cataloging. ► Collections that will never be made available to the public. ► Collections for which you already have very substantial intellectual and physical control and are seeking more granular description.

Prior to surveying ► Discussion with local staff. ► Preparation of basic collection records.  At minimum, need title/main entry and some indication of location and extent.  Information can be collected/provided in a variety of ways. ► Background research.

During surveying ► ► Look through boxes, volumes and other collection materials to determine physical arrangement and condition. (Materials are returned to the original housing unless surveyors are instructed otherwise.) ► ► Look through enough to get a good sense of the content of the collection (subject matter, themes, depth of coverage, document genres, etc.). ► ► Review and assess the existing intellectual access tools, such as collection/donor/control folders, inventories, catalog records/cards, and finding aids, in terms of how well they provide access to the collection. ► Verify and revise titles, dates, extents and other components of archival description as needed.

Ratings ► Discuss and achieve consensus to assign ratings to different physical and intellectual characteristics of collections. ► Document rationale in the General Note. ► Particularly in relation to research value ratings, the more context provided to the surveyors, the more informed the ratings will be. ► Welcome input during surveying.

After surveying ► Fleshing out abstracts, as appropriate. ► Adding name and subject headings. ► Indicating related collections (PACSCL and non-PACSCL) as appropriate.

The survey database ► Access ► Security ► Design ► Metadata and content standards ► Getting data out of the database ► Public interface

Access ► Via FileMaker Pro client  Fullest functionality  Only available on computers with FileMaker installed (version 7, 8.0, 8.5, or 9.0)  Software available through volume license for the project (1 free “seat” to each institution) ► Via web browser  Available from virtually any computer with Internet access  Display dependent on browser  Not all functions work or work the same as in the client

Security ► Must log in to use database. ► Each institution has two database accounts that can be shared within the institution; additional accounts can be requested. ► Multiple levels of privileges – read-only, editing pre- and post-surveying, authority file access. ► Local information can only be viewed by people logged in under the institution’s account. ► Survey data can only be changed by project staff, but we will be happy to discuss or review anytime.

Design ► Multiple tables  Repository data  Collection data  Authority data ► Search and display layouts can be partially customized according to institutional preferences ► Work in progress – we welcome input!

Content standards and controlled vocabularies ► Archival description follows Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS). ► Name headings are from the Library of Congress Name Authority File when possible; from local authority files or created according to DACS/AACR2 otherwise. ► Topical and geographic headings are from Library of Congress Subject Headings. (Open to using other controlled vocabularies for subjects when appropriate to the holding institution.) ► Genre and occupation headings are a subset of Art and Architecture Thesaurus. ► Theme list developed with PACSCL participant input.

Metadata standards and output ► Collection-level description fields have been designed to map to MARC. ► Crosswalks from MARC to other metadata standards facilitate use of information towards the creation of other metadata outputs. ► Encourage people to use the database as much as possible, and it (or its successor) will be the central home for survey data even after the project has concluded, but recognize that people may want to integrate data into existing systems and tools.

Export ► Built-in FileMaker options for exporting full records for use in other applications. ► Customized options for exporting collection-level description in a variety of formats.  MARC (using MARC Maker) ► Using MarcEdit, can generate MARCXML, MODS, Dublin Core.  EAD ► XML, but can be delivered in HTML, PDF, or XML, depending on the stylesheet attached.  “Regular” HTML  “Regular” PDF

Public interface ► Available on the project website, and encourage participating institutions to link to it. ► Provides a point of access in addition to other methods selected by individual institutions and only place for researchers to search across collections surveyed for this project. ► Only finalized records designated as “public” in the survey database are included.  Institution can designate all, some or none of its records for inclusion. ► Encourage everyone to contribute records, but glad to discuss individual concerns.

Upcoming developments ► Current information always available on project website: ► Meetings to discuss projects based on the survey data and other next steps.  PACSCL discussions around History of Science. ► Project-end conference in late 2008.