Evolution of Access to OSU Archives, 1991-2003 Non-Traditional Partnerships for Access to Collections Oregon Library Association Corvallis, Oregon April.

Evolution of Access toOSU Archives , 1991-2003

Non-Traditional Partnerships for Access to Collections

Oregon Library AssociationCorvallis, Oregon

April 25, 2003Elizabeth Nielsen, Senior Staff Archivist

Oregon State University Librarieshttp://osulibrary.orst.edu/archives/

Overview

• How we currently provide information about archival materials; how this access has evolved during the past ~12 years at OSU; future forms of access.

• Differences between describing archival materials and more typical library materials.

• How these processes can be applied to other atypical collections in public and academic libraries.

Collaborators

• Debbie Hackleman• Richard Sapon-White• Larry Landis• Karl McCreary and Faye Harkins

Why?

• To inform potential users/patrons about collections.

• To enhance access/use of collections by providing more detailed information.

• Especially important for archival collections which are not “browsable” and with which most patrons are not familiar.

OSU Archives

• Established in 1961 within the Library.• Transferred to central administration

in late 1960s.• Became a department of the

University Libraries in Sept 2000.• Located in Kerr Administration

Building from early 1970s until summer 2003.

Archives Collections

• Record Groups• Manuscript Collections• Photographic and Moving Image

Materials• Collection strengths include forestry,

wildlife conservation, and agriculture.

• Photographic collections document the people and places of Oregon.

Principles for Description of Archival Materials

• Different materials best served by different types/levels of description.

• Collection-level.• Hierarchical.• Item-level description only for

certain materials (e.g. photographs).

What’s a Finding Aid?

• Document that describes an archives collection.

• Two parts:– Collection-level information.– Inventory or container list at folder-

(or item-) level.

Challenges of Automation

• Archivists have modified finding aids format to best fit materials they are describing.

• For automation, format needs to be standardized.

Examples of Finding Aids

• College of Home Economics and Education Records (RG 141)

• William H. Carlson Papers• Helen M. Gilkey Papers• Gifford Photographic Collection (P

218)• Herbarium Photographs (P 93)

Development of OSU Archives’ Finding Aids

• 1990 – no finding aids in electronic form

• 1991 – convert existing finding aids into digital form via OCR and re-keying

• 1993 – Gopher• 1995 – World Wide Web

Remember Gophers?

• Client-server application.• No graphics; no hyperlinks; limit of

25kB (!!) to file size.• Archives was early adopter at OSU.• June 1993 – OSU Archives and

Records Management Gopher became available to on- and off-campus internet users.

WWW

• Archives website launched in 1995.• One of first college/university

archives websites and one of first extensive uses of the OSU campus website.

• Offered graphics, hyperlinking, and much larger file capability.

• Initially linked to gopher server for many of finding aids.

Gopher’s Demise• Maintained both Gopher and WWW

for ~ 18 months.• Gradually shifted to WWW as

preferred provider.• OSU Gopher discontinued March 1,

1997.

Need More than Finding Aids

• Need access point that reaches broader audience than finding aids in repository or on web server.

• Especially need way to inform “typical” library user of archival materials.

• Union catalogs will reach patrons away from our campus.

Archivists Struggle with MARC Records

• Limited length (especially of note fields).

• Difficulty in applying MARC format to archival and manuscript materials.

… But we knew it was an important step.

Development of OSU Archives’ MARC Records

• 1970s/early 1980s – few records submitted to NUCMC

• 1991 – Archives purchased microMARC.amc

• 1992 – staff training in MARC cataloging for archival materials

• 1993 – began working with Library staff

…

MARC Records … cont’d.

• mid-1990s – experimentation phase; efforts concentrated on WWW; maybe didn’t need MARC records?

• 1994-1997 – submitted ~40 records to NUCMC

• 1998-1999 – Library migrated from GEAC to III automation system and became an Orbis member

• Technology now allowed for linking from MARC records to full finding aid

MARC Records …

• Y2K – MicroMARC.amc not Y2K compliant

• 2000 –jump-started collaboration with Libraries coincident with administrative transfer in fall

• Sept 2000 – loaded first MARC records to OASIS, Orbis, and OCLC

Current Procedure

• Initial record created (using CatMe) by Archives staff person who prepares finding aid; reviewed by other Archives’ staff.

• Draft record reviewed by Catalog Librarian (Richard Sapon-White).

• Modifications are made by Archives’ staff.• Record is loaded by Richard to OASIS,

Orbis, and OCLC.

Progress to Date

• 114 catalog records– 72 manuscript collections– 42 record groups

Examples

• Ava Milam Clark (browse)• Search Home Economics

What Does the Future Hold?

• Encoded Archival Description (EAD)

• Digital Library Projects– Braceros in Oregon Photograph

Collection

What’s EAD?

A set of rules for designating the intellectual and physical parts of archival finding aids so that the information can be searched, retrieved, displayed and exchanged in a predictable, platform-independent manner.

XML format.

Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA)

Database of EAD finding aids from 13 institutions in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho being developed with grant from National Endowment for the Humanities.

Requirement of the grant that all finding aids also be represented by collection-level MARC records.

Braceros in Oregon Photograph Collection

• Digital Library project within OSU Libraries to provide enhanced access to heavily used collection of photographs.

• Searchable web interface to scanned images.

• MARC record for full collection.

Application to Other Collections

• Vertical Files• Pamphlet Files• Poster Collections• Any integrated group of materials

with common features that benefits from collection-level as well as more detailed description.

Lessons Learned

• Archives couldn’t do this alone.• All much easier after we joined Libraries.• Two-pronged approach works well; MARC

record linked to finding aid.• Always be alert regarding migration

issues of proprietary software.• Be poised to take advantage of new

technologies/opportunities.• Persistence pays off.

Thank You.

Elizabeth NielsenElizabeth.nielsen@orst.edu

541-737-0543