Archival Management Software - CLIR
ArchivalManagementSoftwareA Report for the Council onLibrary and Information Resourcesby Lisa SpiroJanuary 2009Council on Library and Information ResourcesWashington, D.C.
iiAbout the AuthorLisa Spiro directs Rice University's Digital Media Center, where she managesdigital projects; provides training in XML markup, digital research tools, andmultimedia; studies emerging educational technologies; and oversees theuniversity's central multimedia lab. A Frye Leadership Institute fellow, shereceived her Ph.D. in English from the University of Virginia, where sheworked at the Electronic Text Center and served as the managing editor ofPostmodern Culture. She has published and presented on book history,institutional repositories, and the scholarly use of digital archives. She blogsabout digital scholarship in the humanities athttp://digitalscholarship.wordpress.com/.
iiiContentsAcknowledgments .vForeword . vi1. Introduction.12. The Problem of Hidden Collections .13. The Role of Software in Addressing Hidden Collections.34. Research Method .85. How to Select Archival Management Software.96. Criteria for Choosing Archival Software .107. Types of Software.188. Possible Approaches to Federating Archival Description fromMultiple Repositories.299. Conclusion .32Works Cited .33AppendixesAppendix 1: The Archival Workflow.38Appendix 2: Archival Management Systems Features Matrix [Brief] .42Appendix 3: Archival Management Systems Features Matrices [Full] .44Appendix 4: Notes from Interviews with Archivists about Archon,Archivists’ Toolkit, Cuadra STAR/Archives, Eloquent, andCollectiveAccess.92Archivists’ Toolkit Summary .92Reasons for Selecting Archivists’ Toolkit .92Ease of Use .93Installation and Maintenance.94Ease of Customization .95User Community .95Weaknesses .95Strengths .96Archon Summary .99Reasons for Selecting Archon.99Ease of Use .99Installation and Maintenance.100Ease of Customization .100Weaknesses .100User Community .101Strengths .102Overall Assessment .103Archon’s Response to User Feedback .103Cuadra STAR/Archives Summary .104Reasons for Selecting Quadra .104Installation and Maintenance.104Ease of Customization .104User Community/Support.105Weaknesses .105Strengths .105Overall Assessment .107Eloquent Archive Summary.108
ivReasons for Selecting Eloquent.108Ease of Use .108Ease of Installation.108Ease of Customization .109User Community/Support.109Weaknesses .109Strengths .110Eloquent’s Response to User Feedback.110CollectiveAccess Summary .112Reasons for Selecting CollectiveAccess .112Ease of Use .112Ease of Customization .112Weaknesses .112User Community/Support.112Strengths .112
vAcknowledgmentsIn preparing this report, I spoke or corresponded with a number ofarchivists, software developers, metadata specialists, and vendors. Iwould like to offer my sincere thanks for their insights and frankness; thisreport would be much less rich without their input. All errors are myown. Lisa Atkinson, University of CalgaryCharles Blair, University of ChicagoLeah Broaddus, Southern Illinois University CarbondaleChristopher Burcsik, MINISIS Inc.Chris Burns, University of VermontChristine de Catanzaro, Georgia Institute of TechnologyNicole Cho, Coney Island History ProjectMichele Combs, Syracuse UniversityCara Conklin-Wingfield, The Parrish Art MuseumAmanda Focke, Rice UniversityJulie Grob, University of HoustonGeneva Henry, Rice UniversityMalcolm Howitt, DS LimitedCees Huisman, Adlib Information Systems BVSeth Kaufman, CollectiveAccessShelly Kelly, University of Houston-Clear LakeAnne Kling, Cincinnati Historical SocietyBill Landis, Yale UniversityDaniel Meyer, University of ChicagoEric Milenkiewicz, University of California RiversideSammie Morris, Purdue UniversityMerilee Proffitt, RLG Programs, OCLCChris Prom, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/ArchonMerv Richter, Eloquent SystemsMelissa Salazar, New Mexico State ArchivesDan Santamaria, Princeton UniversityAmy Schindler, College of William and MaryAlice Schreyer, University of ChicagoJennifer Silvers, Oklahoma Historical SocietyIlene Slavick, Cuadra Associates, Inc.Amanda Stevens, Council of Nova Scotia ArchivesChuck Thomas, Florida Center for Library AutomationMelissa Torres, Rice UniversityMaxine Trost, Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryPeter Van Garderen, Artefactual Systems/ICA-AToMBruce Washburn, OCLC/ArchiveGridRebecca L. Wendt, California State ArchivesBrad Westbrook, University of California San Diego/Archivists’ToolkitJennifer Whitfield, Past PerfectKathy Wisser, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
viForewordWith generous support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, theCouncil on Library and Information Resources has launched a multiyearprogram that addresses the challenge of cataloging hidden collections—thosematerials held in special collections, archives, and other restricted orrelatively inaccessible settings. The program has two major dimensions: first,to identify hidden collections of potential value to scholars; and second, toaddress the thorny issue of cataloging such materials efficiently, effectively,and in such a way that the catalog records are available to scholars throughthe Web. In this paper, Lisa Spiro describes and analyzes some of the majortechnologies that are available to librarians, curators, and archivists and theimplications of deploying these systems for existing workflows. We offer thisreport to the community with the hope that it will foster discussion as well asaid CLIR’s evaluation of awards and articulation of lessons to be learned. Ms.Spiro has established a wiki athttp://archivalsoftware.pbwiki.com/FrontPage. We encourage readers tocontribute their experiences.Amy FriedlanderDirector of ProgramsCouncil on Library and Information ResourcesJanuary 9, 2009
Archival Management Software11. IntroductionWhether called “the elephant in the closet” (Mandel 2004, 106)or a “dirty little secret” (Tabb 2004, 123), hidden collections arebecoming recognized as a major problem for archives andspecial collections. As the Council on Library and InformationResources (CLIR) stated in launching its Cataloging HiddenSpecial Collections and Archives Program, “Libraries,archives, and cultural institutions hold millions of items thathave never been adequately described. These items are all butunknown to, and unused by, the scholars those organizationsaim to serve” (2008). Reducing archival backlogs and exposingonce-hidden collections will likely require that archivesrevamp their workflows, but software can play a role inmaking archives more efficient and their collections morevisible.What technologies can help archives and special collectionstackle their “hidden collections” and make them available toresearchers? This report explores archival management systems such as Archon, Archivists’ Toolkit (AT), Cuadra STAR,and Minisis M2A. It also considers tools for creating andpublishing encoded archival description (EAD) finding aids.Archival management systems are a kind of software thattypically provide integrated support for the archivalworkflow, including appraisal, accessioning, description, arrangement, publication of finding aids, collection management, and preservation. (Tools, on the other hand, are software applications that typically focus on specific tasks and canbe components of systems.) Rather than explicitly recommending particular software, this report takes archiviststhrough the main decision points, including types of licenses,cost, support for collection management, and flexibility versusstandardization. The report draws upon interviews with usersas well as on previous studies of archival software andinformation provided by the developers and vendors. It offersfeatures matrices for selected archival management systems sothat archivists can make quick comparisons of differentsoftware. Instead of evaluating the performance of the software, this report compares features and reports on the experiences of archivists in implementing them. This report is intended to be a resource for the archival community to buildupon; hence it is available as a wiki athttp://archivalsoftware.pbwiki.com/, and archivists,information technology (IT) staff, and developers are invitedto add new information to it.2. The Problem of Hidden CollectionsAccording to a 1998 Association of Research Libraries (ARL)survey of special collections libraries, about 28 percent of
Lisa Spiro2manuscript collections are unprocessed, while 36 percent ofgraphic materials and 37 percent of audio materials have notbeen processed (Pantich 2001). Furthermore, the survey foundthat “the most frequent type of available access is throughcard catalog records or manual finding aids,” which suggeststhat researchers often must be physically present at specialcollections and archives to know what they hold (Pantich 2001,8). As the ARL Task Force on Special Collections argues, thefailure to process collections holds back research, leads toduplicates being purchased, and makes them more vulnerableto being stolen or lost because libraries and archives don’tknow what they have. Studies have shown that between 25percent and 30 percent of researchers have not been able to usecollections because they have not been processed (Greene andMeissner 2005, 211). As a result, stakeholders such asresearchers and donors become frustrated. Indeed, in a muchdiscussed article, Greene and Meissner report that “at 51% ofrepositories, researchers, donors, and/or resource allocatorshad become upset because of backlogs” (2005, 212).To confront the problem of unprocessed collections, Greeneand Meissner promote “a new set of arrangement, preservation, and description guidelines that (1) expedites gettingcollection materials into the hands of users; (2) assures arrangement of materials adequate to user needs; (3) takes theminimal steps necessary to physically preserve collection materials; and (4) describes materials sufficient to promote use”(2005, 212-213). Meeting researchers’ needs for access to materials trumps achieving perfection in archival description andarrangement. Likewise, the ARL Task Force proposes minimalprocessing, suggesting that “it is better to provide some levelof access to all materials, than to provide comprehensive access to some materials and no access at all to others” (Jones2003, 5). This access can be provided through the OnlinePublic Access Catalog (OPAC) EAD finding aids, digitalcollections, or databases. Indeed, providing electronic access iscrucial to making hidden collections more visible, since “increasingly, materials that are electronically inaccessible aresimply not used” (Jones 2003, 5). Thus, the Library of CongressWorking Group on the Future of Bibliographic Controlrecommends that archives “make finding aids accessible viaonline catalogs and available on the Internet,” streamlinecataloging, and “encourage inter-institutional collaboration forsharing metadata records and authority records for rare andunique materials” (2008, 23-24).Among the criteria that archives and special collections shouldconsider in determining how to process each collection aresize, condition, significance, and, perhaps most important, theneeds of researchers. Archives should keep in mind thatarchival descriptions may be part of distributed, federatedcatalogs, so they should adhere to best practices to ensureconsistency of data. The ARL Task Force recognizes that some
Archival Management Software3collections may require more detailed description than othersand that any decision will involve trade-offs. As one drafter ofthe ARL Task Force Report observed, “Collection-levelcataloging is potentially dangerous because if not done right,it will merely convert materials from ‘unprocessed’ to‘hidden’”(Jones 2003, 9-10).Institutions have devised different approaches to hidden collections based on the nature of their collections and the resources available. Through the University of Chicago’s Andrew W. Mellon Foundation–funded “Uncovering New Chicago Archives Project” (UNCAP), graduate students areworking with scholars and cultural heritage professionals tocatalog hidden collections housed at a local library and museum (Shreyer 2007). For the museum collection, they are using item-level cataloging, whereas they are using morestandard archival practices with the library collection. In addition, a professional archivist is using minimal processingtechniques to process a jazz collection and a contemporarypoetry collection housed at the university. Whereas the students are producing detailed descriptions, the archivist istaking a more stripped-down approach, allowing Chicago totest the effectiveness of each model. Similarly, to reduce archival backlogs and provide research experiences for graduatestudents, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)launched the Center for Primary Research and Training(CFPRT), which “pairs graduate students with unprocessed orunderprocessed collections in their areas of interest and trainsthem in archival methods, resulting in processed collectionsfor us and dissertation, thesis, or research topics for them”(Steele 2008). UCLA develops a plan for processing eachcollection and uses an online calculator to estimate costs.3. The Role of Software in Addressing HiddenCollectionsReducing archival backlogs fundamentally requires adoptingmore-efficient means of processing collections, but softwarecan contribute to that efficiency and make it easier for archivesto provide online access to archival descriptions. At manyarchives, information is scattered across several differentdigital and physical systems, resulting in duplication of effortand difficulty in locating needed information. For instance,one archive uses a hodgepodge of methods to manage itscollections, including paper accession records; an Accessdatabase for collection-level status information; lists and databases for tracking statistics; hundreds of EAD finding aids;hundreds of paper control folders providing collection-levelinformation, some of which is duplicated in Word files or inXML finding aids; and item-level descriptions of objects to bedigitized in Excel spreadsheets. This miscellany means that
Lisa Spiro4there are problems with versioning, redundancy, finding information, and making that information publicly accessible.Likewise, Chris Prom found that many archives are using avariety of tools at various steps in their workflows, so much sothat “their descriptive workflows would make good subjectsfor a Rube Goldberg cartoon.” Examples include the Integrated Library System (ILS) for the creation of MARC records, NoteTab and XMetaL for authoring finding aids, Accessfor managing accessions, Word for creating container lists, andDynaWeb for serving up finding aids (Prom 2008, 27). (SeeAppendix 1 of this paper for a more detailed description of thearchival workflow.)In addition to the inefficiencies of using multiple systems tomanage common data, Prom et al. (2007, 158-159) notes acorrelation between using EAD and other descriptive standards with larger backlogs and slower processing speeds.(EAD is an XML-based standard for representing archivalfinding aids, which describe archival collections.) Some institutions simply lack the ability to produce EAD finding aids orMARC catalog records. As Prom et al. suggest, “Until creatingan on-line finding aid and sharing it with appropriate contentaggregators is as easy as using a word processor, the archivalprofession is unlikely to significantly improve access to thetotality of records and papers stored in a repository” (2007,159). One of the ARL Task Force on Special Collections’recommendations thus focuses on developing usable tools todescribe and catalog archival collections: “Since not allinstitutions are currently employing applicable nationalstandards, the development of easy-to-use tools for file encoding and cataloging emerge as a priority. These tools shouldbe simple enough to be used by students or paraprofessionalsworking under the supervision of librarians or archivists”(Jones 2003, 11). Greene and Meissner (2005, 242) suggest thatsoftware can play a vital role in streamlining archivalworkflows by enabling archivists to describe the intellectualarrangement of a collection without investing the time toorganize it physically. In 2003, Carol Mandel observed that “Ialso have been told again and again that we really don’t havesoftware for managing special collections. We don’t have theequivalent of your core bibliographic system that helps youbring things in and move them around efficiently and knowwhat you are doing with them” (Mandel 2004, 112).Fortunately, powerful software for managing special collections and archives is emerging. This report is more a samplingof leading archival management systems that offer Englishlanguage user interfaces than a comprehensive examination ofevery potentially relevant application.1 Of course, software1Archival/collection management and description software that go beyondthe scope of this report include Andornot Archives Online,ARGUS/Questor, Collections MOSAiC Plus, CollectionSpace, Embark,Filemaker Pro, HERA2, IDEA, KE EMu, Microsoft Access, Mimsy xg,
Archival Management Software5itself cannot solve the problem of hidden collections; whatmatters is how software is used and incorporated intostreamlined, effective workflows. Although archivalmanagement systems such as Archon and Archivists’ Toolkitcan play an important role in facilitating the production ofEAD and MARC records and streamlining archivalworkflows, Prom, a developer of Archon, cautions that “archivists should not treat them as magic bullets. They will onlyprove to be effective in encouraging processing and descriptive efficiency if they are implemented as part of a strategicmanagement effort to reformulate processing policies, processes, procedures” (Prom 2008, 32).2In conversations with archivists, I asked what their dreamsoftware would be as a way of identifying what featureswould be most important to them and envisioning what maybe possible. They often responded that they liked the softwareapplications they were currently using, but would add a fewfeatures. The responses point out some of the strengths ofexisting software and future directions for software developers. Through conversations with archivists and a review ofexisting research, I’ve identified the following desired featuresfor archival management systems.3 Integrated: Rather than having to enter data in multiple databases, an archivist could enter the data onceand generate multiple outputs, such as an accessionlist, EAD finding aids, a MARC record, a shelf list, andan online exhibit. As one archivist remarked, “Theideal approach to minimal processing is that you toucheverything only once. Every time you touch it is morestaff time.”Minaret, Re:discovery, and VernonSystems Collection. Integrated DigitalSpecial Collections (INDI), currently under development at Brigham YoungUniversity, is geared toward large archives or consortia and aims to supporta distributed workflow for archival description and management. Theaccessions and appraisal modules have already been released, but as ofAugust 2008 the future direction of the project was still being determined.2How to efficiently manage archives is beyond the scope of this report, butGreene and Meissner 2005 and Prom 2007 take up the issue in detail.3Many of these desired features jibe with Archivists’ Toolkit’s (AT) recentsurvey of 171 users investigating what new features they most desire. Themost popular options included ”Search improvements” (average of 4.04 outof 5, with 5 being “very important”); “Enable batch editing/ globalupdating,” (4.31); “Web publishing of AT data” (4.2); “Digital objects recordrevision,” which would include support for technical metadata, visualmetadata, and independent digital objects (3.97); and a “Use trackingmodule,” which would provide “Support for tracking and reporting the useof a repository’s collection” (3.86). See AT User Group Survey Results:Proposed New Features and Functionality up%20SurveyResultsFD.pdf.
Lisa Spiro6 Supports importing legacy data: Many archives havealready invested a great deal of time in creating EADfinding aids. Likewise, they want an easy way to import other data, such as accessions information. Theywant software that will seamlessly import existingdata—which can be a challenge, given the variability ofEAD documents and other forms of archival data. Enables easy exporting of data: Given how quicklysoftware becomes obsolete, archivists recognize theneed for being able to export data cleanly and easily.One archivist commented, “Archival material is sospecific that you don’t want to get locked into anything Ideally, I would want something that wouldalso preserve that information in a format that is ableto migrate if needed.” Provides Web-publishing capabilities: Many archiveslack the ability to make their finding aids available online. By providing a Web-publishing component, anarchival management system would enable archives toprovide wider access to their collections. Through online access, archives have found that they become morevisible. As Victoria Steele (2008) writes, “As newfinding aids become viewable online, we have seen,over and over, that researchers are at our door to consult the collections they describe. But it must be saidthat a consequence of our success has been that staffwhose primary focus was the processing of collectionsare now almost wholly engaged in handling reader requests, reference inquiries, and licensing agreements—leaving them almost no time for processing.” Simple yet powerful: Archivists want software that is“as easy to use as Word but transforms to the Web andgenerates EAD at the click of a button.” Students andparaprofessionals without strong archival trainingneed software that provides simple templates for entering data, so that they know what information goeswhere. (Clear user guides can also assist in ensuringthe quality and consistency of data). If software is toocomplex or cumbersome to use, much time will be lost.The software should be flexible enough to adapt to thearchive’s existing workflow. Rigorous, standards-based: The archival communityhas embraced standards such as EAD, Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), and EncodedArchival Context (EAC), and archivists want softwarethat ensures conformity to these standards. The potential for inconsistent, incorrect data increases as morepeople participate in describing archival collections.Archival management systems can reduce the likeli-
Archival Management Software7hood of error by ensuring that data are entered according to standard archival practices (for instance,making sure that dates are in the proper format).4 Provides collection management features. Archivistswant software that helps them manage and track theiroperations more efficiently. Several intervieweeswanted to be able to track reference statistics, whileothers would like to generate temporary records andtrack locations. Portable: Archivists often work in environments wherethey do not have access to a desktop computer or evento the network, such as the home of a donor or a roomin a small museum. As a result, they may begin collecting data using offline software such as spreadsheets. Once they return to their offices, they have toredo much of the work to make it fit into their existingsystems. According to one archivist, “It would be useful if we could begin processing on-site, where we firstencounter the material. We have to begin again eachtime we start a new stage.” Archival software couldthus support offline data entry, allowing archivists toenter data into a laptop and then upload it into an archival management system once they have networkconnectivity. Perhaps archival management systemcould also support data entry through mobile, wirelessdevice such as iPhones).4 Aids in setting priorities for processing: Some archival management systems enable archives to recordwhich collections are higher priorities, thus allowingarchivists to plan processing more effectively. In defining approaches to hidden collections, the ARL Special Collections Task Force put forward several recommendations that involve using tools and measuresto assess processing priorities. Two of these recommendations are “Develop qualitative and quantitativemeasures for the evaluation of special collections” and“Support collection mapping to reveal the existence ofspecial collections strengths and gaps, as well as toidentify hidden collections” (ARL 2006). Such tools areoutside the scope of this report, but it is important toacknowledge the role of related technologies. Examplesof tools and protocols that can be used to assesscollections and prioritize processing include thePhiladelphia Area Consort
cost, support for collection management, and flexibility versus standardization. The report draws upon interviews with users as well as on previous studies of archival software and information provided by the developers and vendors. It offers features matrices for selected archival management systems so
(Sec. 3.1) and the keyword-based (Sec. 3.2) CLIR approaches and how the two approaches are merged (Sec. 3.3). 3.1Deep Belief Network-based CLIR The task of semantic-based CLIR is to discover a subset of documents in the target language that coincides with a query in the
them is used for our Chinese monolingual IR. On English-Chinese CLIR, our focus was put on finding effective ways for query translation. Large English-Chinese bilingual dictionaries are now available. However, beside the problem of completeness of the dictionary, we are also faced with the p
develop a framework for business planning, a template that lays out the major elements of that framework, and a guide to applying the tem-plate in the context of cultural heritage institutions. To follow up, CLIR, with generous support from IMLS, commissioned a guide to business planning aimed at those cultural heritage institutions not
Family and the pride in their Jewish heritage instilled by their parents, the Goodman Family Judaic & Archival Museum at Temple Israel was born. The mission of the Goodman Family Judaic & Archival Museum at Temple Israel, with funding provided by the Goodman Family Judaic
archival institutions or archives, board of directors or managements of companies can also give directives or make regulations to guide the establishment and functioning of archival units in their companie
Robert E. Canaan photographs, 1944-1999. Archival Collection 43 Miles C. Collier Collection Page 2 of 5 Title: Robert E. Canaan photographs, 1944-1999. Creator: Canaan, Robert, 1922-2012. Call Number: Archival Collection 43 Quantity: 27 linear feet (1 bankers box, 1 oversized flat box, 1 glass plate negative box, 7 clamshell boxes, and 14 clamshell binder boxes)
Therefore, you must treat the SOFTWARE like any other copyrighted material (e.g., a book or musical recording) except that you may either (a) make one copy of the SOFTWARE solely for backup or archival purposes, or (b) transfer the SOFTWARE to a single hard disk provided you keep the original solely for backup or archival purposes.
Accounting for the quality of NHS output 3 2. Accounting for the quality of healthcare output There is a great deal of variation among health service users in terms of the nature of their contact . The .
