NDSA:February 23, 2014 Standards and Practices Working Group Notes

Notes: Joey Heinen, Harvard Library

Announcements and Project Updates

• Video Survey Update - blog post on challenges in managing video collection forthcoming, a “next steps” meeting is soon to occur and participation is welcome, e-mail NDSA Standards and Practices group if interested.

Today’s discussion topic: Issues, challenges and solutions for cataloging AV collections Pt 1

Chris Lacinak AVPS: tool demo, due to time constraints could only cover AVCC and Catalyst, MediaSCORE and AMS info available upon request.

Both AVCC and Catalyst are web-based and browser-based tools, login can occur remotely. Both live on web servers and are viewable in any browser. Multiple licenses can access the server simultaneously. The tools are both designed for item-level inventory and description with slightly different purposes but are both intended to galvanize group efforts around gaining intellectual control over A/V collections. AVCC (Audio Visual Collaborative Cataloging) is built with the idea of empowering volunteer workforce with a more generic approach towards workflow whereas Catalyst is more prescriptive, designed around a specific workflow. Catalyst also requires more initial set-up for implementation.

AVCC

Initial designs by AVPS, brought to Metro who provided additional funding for development, created proof-of-concept design, beta-testing, continued work with Library of Congress to refine applications. User is presented with the main dashboard upon login. Some significant features:

• count by format
• create separate projects (useful for auditing and progress reporting)
• commercial vs. unique (provides a sense of object rarity)
• overview of storage capacity (linear footage, file size, a key for how these numbers are calculated)

Users can then navigate to the Records module. Some significant features:

• listing of all item-level records
• Add records
• Set media type: Audio, Film, Video
• Controlled list of formats (dependent on media type that is selected, required field)
• Review button for flagging and sorting records for administrative approval or auditing as necessary.

Additional Features/Benefits The Project feature for organizing records based on their affiliation to a project can be good for auditing later on, ensuring controlled vocabulary, creating good feedback loops throughout the process, reviewing and solidifying workflows as issues arise, etc.

The option exists for duplicate records for collections that are of a similar format or which share other similar descriptive/technical characteristics. This can help make the cataloging process more efficient. Bulk editing records is possible, though a common media type must be identified. Records are stamped with a username, modified date and time for auditing purposes. Removing unwanted fields requires a show/hide feature, cannot be deleted nor can fields be added as these are linked to fixed reporting functions.

Edit base allows for modifying of fields. Fields can also be scored (1 to 5) for prioritization in reporting. Search/filter by title, format, etc. Import/export features allows for csv or xlsx formats, can merge records into existing datasets or combine separate imported datasets so long as a unique identifier is shared across. Reporting options: All records, prioritization report (based on score), manifest (box number, shipment batches, etc.), file size calculator (planning for digitization), linear feet, etc. Nightly inventory back-up can be scheduled daily, e-mails a full export of the records which can download from the cloud.

Catalyst

This tool was developed as a solution to cataloging disparate and disorganized collections that may be geographically separate or within different depositories. The impetus for this project was through the New Jersey Network whose archival funding shifted and resulted in neglected and obscured A/V collections, needed to regain intellectual control over their holdings.

The most distinctive features is the workflow which involves photographing objects and linking them to catalog records. The images are in service of progressive “layers” of cataloging, starting with more generic ways of grouping content and then creating more granular data as is desired or deemed appropriate based on content or the associated collection. QA of cataloging is a benefit since the image serves as back-up and auditing the results of the cataloger are more immediate, rapid and iterative description (first pass helps to reveal what series exist, can go back and put more layers of description on top of collections deemed more valuable or at-risk). Upon upload of the photo, a record is created and marked as “unassigned” which allows the user to catalog additional fields. Some data is generated automatically, mostly administrative or related to the upload. Records or groups of records can be assigned to specific catalogers based on their account in order to streamline the process. Records can be flagged for approval such that an extra QC step can occur, records marked as “pass” or “fail” and metrics applied for the overall collection to gauge progress.

Project update (record, data-entry statuses), how many records are photographed (by date, team, format, similar auditing and feedback loops as offered in AVCC. Fields can be added, edited, or moved. Catalyst is not intended for collection management as it is designed for created a first order of intellectual control to large collections and inventorying, collection management will likely occur in a different system. Data can be exported along with the media (container photographs) and can be imported and merged to maintain these relationships (provided the destination system is able to contain images of the objects along with the record).

Questions:

• Andrea Goethals wondered if both AVCC and Catalyst could be used in conjunction.

Chris Licinak: data could be mapped to the spreadsheet format for AVCC and imported (though no support for images exists in AVCC)

• Carl Fleischhauer wanted to know more about the cloud service and support fees

Chris Lacinak: Both tools are open-source, AVCC can be downloaded off of github. Both tools need to be hosted on a server, can be added as a service through the tools. Catalyst and AVCC operate within a similar technology stack. AVCC could be run on an institution’s own server if preferred.

• John Spencer asked is it possible to store the catalog back-ups and exports within the cloud and the extent to which this data is easily decoupled from the internal structure of the tools.

Chris Lacinak: Full data set decoupling is a major part of the design

Upcoming sessions

March 16, convo pt. 2 Follow up e-mails regarding the tools can be sent directly Chris Lacinak.