University of
Washington
Digital Collections
The University of Washington was founded in 1861 by a
private gift of 10 acres in what is now downtown Seattle. It is one of the
oldest public universities on the West Coast and due to its public status the
University’s goals focus on accessibility of knowledge and being engaged
with their communities through knowledge and discovery in order elevate the
quality of lives of others (
http://www.washington.edu/discover/).
The University’s Libraries’ Special Collections is the major resource for rare
and archival materials covering a broad range of topics, formats and periods.
The digital collections available online are a small representation of the
University’s Special Collections materials but are an extensive and valuable
resource for both researchers who either live close to campus or far away.
These collections contain a range of materials, including photographs, books,
manuscripts, maps, newspapers, posters, reports, architectural drawings, and
other media from the University of Washington libraries, University of
Washington Faculty and Departments, and organizations that have participated in
partner projects with the UW libraries
(
http://content.lib.washington.edu/index.html).
The digital collections website is user friendly and visually
appealing. The homepage offers a quick search option, a carousel of images from
the collections, and three lists of links to exhibits, subject of collection
focus, and related resources. There are also links to Special Collections A-Z
list, subject list, and advanced search option on this page. In browsing the
collection, I found the A-Z list most helpful (http://content.lib.washington.edu/).
Every
digital collection in the repository has a description/summary at the collection
level. Each has a Bio/history note of varying lengths that are accompanied by
one or two sample images and a one or two paragraph scope and content note. The
second section, the scope and content note is termed “About the database”,
which in most cases include information about collection contents, a
description of digitization and processing information. However, in other
cases the last sections solely describes the digital aspect of the collection
and the scope and content note is part of the first section. There is little consistency
in how these two part summaries are broken up throughout the digital
repository. It is clear that this collection level descriptions does not follow
any strict archival description standard such as DACS (Describing Archives: A
Standard) or CCO (Cataloging Cultural Objects) due to its irregularities.
Though the collection level descriptions are very helpful in contextualizing the
collection, the contents of item records are more consistent.
One example of the few
collections that are described solely at the Collection level is the Prosch Washington Views Album. The
collection consists of one multimedia album that has been described as a single
item though it consists of 100 pages of unique photographs and handwritten
descriptions. The collection level summary gives an overview of the creators’
history and an explanation of the album’s place in the University of Washington
Libraries’ repository. Each page contains the same record with the title “Porsch
Washington Views Album”, a broad date range and the same three location
depicted subject headings. The record of course excludes much of the individual
pages’ details. Each page could be viewed as a single item that could
have its own record description. Most likely due to high cost
of item level description or lack of specific information, this particular collection does not.
http://content.lib.washington.edu/prosch_washingtonweb/
An example of an album described as multiple items is also present
in this repository. The Lake Union Improvement
Company Photograph Album images are all individually described at the item
level. The collection
consists of 1 album containing 24 vintage photographic prints, letterpress materials
and one photoengraving. There is a disclaimer that not all photographs in the
album were included in the database, which can be deduced by the missing album
cover image. This makes one think that the particular images were handpicked to
be digitized for something other than the sole purpose of being present in the
digital repository. Otherwise, the entire album would most likely have been
digitized.
As with the Prosch
Album, researchers are able to browse the collection/album page by page.
However in this album, there is the option to browse by subjects using LCSH
(Library of Congress Subject Headings) or LCTGM (Library of Congress Thesaurus
for Graphic Materials).
The majority of the collections that have been digitized are
described at the item level. As mentioned on their website, the collections
that have been chosen to be digitized represent some of the most interesting
parts of their Special Collections, which may be why more time was invested in
processing and describing them. Item descriptions within individual collections
are consistent. However, item level descriptions vary slightly at the
institutional level. This may be due to what information is available about
various collections and a result of different catalogers and processors describing
the collections. Over all the photographic digital collection at the University
of Washington appear to have adequate descriptions.
Alaskan house with bark front, possibly Athapascan, Alaska, ca.
1904 (http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/loc&CISOPTR=1782&CISOBOX=1&REC=1)
Balanced rock resting above lava arch near Park Lake in Grant
County, May 1946 (http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ll&CISOPTR=1025)
In looking at the item level descriptions of the American
Indians of the Pacific Northwest Collection and alongside the collection of Lawrence
Denny Lindsley Photographs of Washington State, both variances and similarities in
the records are visible. The titles throughout the collections are sufficient,
including the what, where, and when. In these examples, the
titles are “Alaskan house with bark front, possibly Athapascan, Alaska, ca.
1904” and “Balanced rock resting above lava arch near Park Lake in Grant
County, May 1946.” The catalogers have succeeded in the first rule of
cataloging, which is to entitle photographs with exactly what the viewer sees. In the
American Indians of the Pacific Northwest Collection, the cataloger uses the
notes field to add their own descriptive detail that would not fit into the
title. “Notes: Man and boy (and dogs) in front of a small house with bark
front, ca. 1898-1910. Half-barrel, kettle and shovel stand on porch; other
small wooden houses stand on either side.” We can infer that these types of
descriptions come from the Processor/cataloger’s own visual reading of the photograph
coupled with their knowledge of its history. In the Lawrence Denny Lindsley Collection the cataloger uses the note field to transcribe what is written on
the back of the photograph and what is stamped and handwritten on the negative
jackets. “Notes:Handwritten on verso: #4239. Lava arch and balanced rock. Park
Lake, Lower Grand Coulee. Stamped on negative jacket: Grand Coulee Series Handwritten
on negative jacket: 4239. May, 1946. Balanced rock and arch.”
The elements these two records have in common and are pretty
consistent throughout the Institutions’ digital collections are: title,
photographer, notes, subjects, location depicted, object type, digital
collection, repository, ordering information, and restrictions. I noticed that
when the record is describing a photograph the object type is always “photograph”
and if the type of photograph is identified, an additional element is added called “physical
description.” This is a smart way to identify the object consistently while still making greater detailed description an option if the photographic process is known.
Many of the collections subjects pertain to areas surrounding
University of Washington’s history. Overall, the descriptions tend to be most
thorough in elements of location depicted, notes, subjects and title, which is
to be expected. As noted, some can be browsed by some kind of controlled vocabulary. In creating a photographic digital repository, the University of Washington is a solid example of good practices in description with only a few minor discrepancies.
