For this assignment, I decided to
look at the digital collections of the University of Maryland. The UMD online digital
collection can be found here: http://digital.lib.umd.edu/. The UMD libraries mainly cater to
students and faculty (University Libraries, 2013a). In terms of subject strengths,
the University of Maryland is an interesting case because it has not one
library but eight (including the archives and special collections), and each
library has its own focus. Not surprisingly, Maryland history and history of
the university itself are listed as strong areas of the collection, but the
university is also strong in topics like broadcasting, politics, civil rights,
and performing arts (University Libraries, 2013b). The last strength is due to
the existence of the Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, whose Special
Collections department contributes many materials to the online digital
collections.
Collection-level descriptions
The UMD digital collection can display
both collection- and item-level records. The system has the collection’s
finding aid serve as the collection-level description, and the finding aid is
set to show up in any relevant searches within the digital collections database.
Using a finding aid as a collection-level description is in contrast to the
Library of Congress’s system, where the digital collection-level record is somewhat
similar in structure and format to item-level records (see for example the record
for the Brady-Handy Photograph Collection at http://lccn.loc.gov/2009632502).
There are pros and cons for each of these approaches. Certainly the University
of Maryland’s approach is more thorough, as you are given a far more detailed
description than you would with an item-level-style record. With a finding aid
you also have the benefit of preserving the relationship between parts of the
collection, which is one of the main reasons why finding aids are so important
for archival collections. However, the inclusion of a full finding aid in a
digital collection might easily have some users confused, while the Library of
Congress’s system is a little more intuitive and easy to take in.
UMD’s finding aids range anywhere
from a simple abstract to a full finding aid complete with links to digitized
photographs available in the UMD online digital collection. One example collection is the Patrick Gilmore Collection, which is a photograph collection
about 19th-century military band leader Patrick Gilmore. The finding
aid for this collection is available via the digital collections database, and
you can view it at this link: http://digital.lib.umd.edu/archivesum/actions.DisplayEADDoc.do?source=MdU.ead.scpa.0006.xml&style=ead
 |
| Finding aid for the Patrick Gilmore Collection. http://digital.lib.umd.edu/archivesum/actions.DisplayEADDoc.do?source=MdU.ead.scpa.0006.xml&style=ead |
There is nothing unusual about the record. It is a very
thorough DACS-compliant finding aid. It provides a variety of subject headings
that span from the general (Bandmasters—United States) to the very specific
(Gilmore’s Band). The thoroughness of the finding aid makes it easy to locate
the collection through the online digital collection, as it has many access
points that can be found with a simple keyword search. Another benefit of the
Patrick Gilmore Collection is that it is easy to view each individual
photograph in the collection, because the box and folder list links directly to
every digitized photo.
On the other hand, not every
collection is so well described. The Betty Quirk Clarke Collection, for
example, only has an abstract and general identifying information like size,
dates, and creator (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/archivesum/actions.DisplayEADDoc.do?source=MdU.ead.univarch.0121.xml&style=ead).
The upside is that this collection is currently unprocessed, which is why it
does not have a more thorough finding aid; the downside is that someone should
have at least picked out a few general subject headings to go along with the
record in order to increase access and findability. The whole point in putting
collections online, after all, is so people can find them and use them.
Betty Quirk Clarke aside, I did not
find much to criticize in terms of UMD’s collection-level descriptions. Their
detail and thoroughness is a very important quality for an online collection.
In an online environment where people are likely to want to search by keyword,
having a thorough finding aid ensures that patrons will find the types of items
that they are looking for. With a full finding aid, you are getting a great
deal of names, subjects, and keywords which will easily help a user find the
collection.
Item-level description – titles
As I mentioned, clicking on one of
the links from the box and folder list brings you to the digitized form of the
photograph, and here we are met with a set of item-level metadata that is very
different from what we saw with the collection-level finding aid. When I
compared several of the digitized photographs within the Patrick Gilmore
Collection, I was struck by how long each of the titles was. At a quick glance,
I was tempted to blame the seemingly excessive title length on a cataloger who
did not know what they were doing. However, it appears that the title of the
photographs follows a consistent pattern. The pattern is as follows:
Format (bust/half-length/three-quarters length, dimensions
in inches) of subject/person/thing, place, date. Photographed by/copied from a
print by photographer’s name, location, date.
Example: Photograph (5"x7") of Gilmore's Band at Manhattan Beach, New York, 1884, copied from a print at Boston Public Library, Brown Collection. (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:132608)
Example: Portrait (half length, 4"x6") of cornetist M. Arbuckle. Photograph by Houseworth's Celebrities, 12 Montgomery Street, San Francisco. [April 1876?], April 1876? (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:132628)
This is only true of photographs within the Patrick Gilmore Collection, however. Outside of this collection, most photographs deviate form this format. Many photographs seem to follow the simple format of "(photograph of) name of person, year." This is the case with "Photograph of Matilda Louise Sterling, circa 1890" (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:4077) and "Mrs. Stonebraker, circa 1860-1885" (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:80029).
The differences in the title format
can perhaps be attributed to different practices from different catalogers. It
may also be the result of a greater problem, as these photographs originate
from different UMD libraries. The Patrick Gilmore Collection is housed in the
performing arts library, while Mrs. Stonebraker photograph comes from the
historical manuscripts repository. The differences in format indicate that the
eight different libraries within the UMD library system have different
cataloging standards, which makes for inconsistencies when the photographs are
all housed together on the online collection.
Unfortunately, these
inconsistencies really hinder accessibility. When users perform an advanced search
by title or any other field, their results will be uneven because each item
places the information in different fields. If catalogers are not consistent
with how they describe photographs, it becomes very difficult for a user to
find all information on a particular topic because the user will have to
perform the same search in several different ways. Even then, they still may
miss relevant items. For this reason, inconsistency is a huge barrier to
access, and this is a real problem for any repository.
Item-level description: photograph type
I had mixed
feelings about the terms used to describe the type of photograph. To their
credit, UMD did not simply use “print” to describe their photographs. However, I
am not sure that the terms they used were especially helpful. In the case of
the photograph of M. Arbuckle (part of the Patrick Gilmore Collection), the
photograph is described as a “Photograph, artistic – monochrome” (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:132628).
There is no attempt to identify the photographic process used (possibly albumen?),
and no mention of the fact that it appears to be a cabinet card. The photograph
of Gilmore’s Band at Manhattan Beach, which was mentioned in the title examples
above, is similarly formatted: “Photograph, documentary – monochrome” (http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:132608).
This pattern seems to be consistent in all photographs, regardless of
repository.
Although
the extra detail is nice to have, I am not sure that it would much good for the
user. Having the photos labeled as artistic or documentary may have some value
(if users thought to search using those terms), but describing a photograph
based on process or format would probably be more useful. I would imagine that
users would be far more likely to search for “albumen print” than they would be
to search for “documentary photograph,” although I could be wrong. Ultimately,
a repository needs to remember that their main goal in having an online collection
is to have people find and use your collections, and so archivists need to make
sure that they use the most useful terms possible when they describe their
holdings.
Item-level description: summary information
In terms of
summary, I encountered similar problems as I had with the title field.
Different catalogers had used the summary field in different ways. First, take
the Mrs. Stonebraker photograph mentioned before (http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:80029).
The summary contains the sort of information that I would expect to see: a
description of the item itself, including format, photographer, and provenance.
 |
| Mrs. Stonebraker, circa 1860-1885" record. http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:80029 |
However, the M. Arbuckle photograph in the Patrick Gilmore Collection has very different information in the summary field (http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:132628). The cataloger responsible for this item used the "summary" field for biographical notes, rather than including information about the photograph itself.
 |
Portrait (half length, 4''x6'') of cornetist M. Arbuckle. Photograph by Houseworth's Celebrities, 12 Montgomery Street, San Francisco. [April 1876?], April 1876? http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:132628 |
Again, these inconsistencies mean
that accessibility is hindered. In the case of M. Arbuckle, it also means that
the user is not given very much information about the photograph itself (unless
they performed the search in the title field, where all of the identifying information
seems to be located). The historical note is a good thing to have, and this
field should probably be added to all of the photographs in the digital
collection. However, the summary of an item should first and foremost summarize
the item itself, because that is what it is supposed to do. This is important
not only for the user, but also for the record-keeping of the repository. However
important a historical note is, putting historical notes in the summary is technically
incorrect, inconsistent, and will do more harm than good in the long run.
Item-level description: final thoughts
My overall impression of the
item-level records was that they were not bad, although not as descriptive or
consistent as they could be. None of the descriptions would have been very
helpful without the image to go along with it, and as I mentioned before, photographic
processes and format are not mentioned. On the plus side, the catalogers have
made a distinct effort to incorporate as many names, places, and dates as
possible to increase access. There are several fields for region and date, as
well as subject terms, browsing terms, and person/corporate names spread
throughout the title and summary of the description. Although there are many
aspects of the record that could be optimized, the photographic descriptions could
have been worse.
Album descriptions
Besides the usual collection-level
and item-level descriptions, I also found a couple of albums in the digital
collections which I can use as a third point of comparison. I found one album
here: http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:164087&skin=alb.
The album description was set up in the same manner as the individual
photographs. For the purposes of the online collection, the album is being
treated as a single item (rather than as a collection of photographs). I think
I would have done the same thing if I was the cataloger, as separating the
photos would have taken away a lot of the context of the collection.
As with the individual photographs,
the description of this album could have been more detailed. Only the cover was
photographed, and the summary of the object was very brief and gave little indication
of what sort of materials could be found inside the album. I did find one photo
album that had each page scanned (see http://digital.lib.umd.edu/image?pid=umd:79977),
but there was no extra descriptive information for the individual photographs
within the album. Perhaps if the UMD digital collection starts to incorporate
more albums, new standards can be made to apply specifically to albums. At the
very least, it would be useful to always have scans of each individual page, a
longer and more detailed description as to the contents of the album, and
possibly individual item-level records for each item within the album. To be at
its most effective, an album description should be more hierarchical in nature
(rather than existing solely as an item-level record), so that each of its
parts can be adequately described. Neither album was poorly described, but
these are just suggestions on ways they could possibly be improved.
References:
Library of Congress. “Brady-Handy Photograph Collection.” Library of Congress Catalog. http://lccn.loc.gov/2009632502
University Libraries. (2013). “Overview.” University of Maryland. http://www.lib.umd.edu/about
University Libraries. (2013). “UMD’s Eight Libraries.” University of Maryland. http://www.lib.umd.edu/about/eight-libraries
University of Maryland University Libraries. Digital Collections. http://digital.lib.umd.edu/
No comments:
Post a Comment