For the final post for this project I will discuss Archon, another open source software for archival collections management built and administered by the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana. The website for Archon can be found at http://www.archon.org/
It may seem odd to have the final post focus on another archival management software but Archon is really a part of the future of Archivists’ Toolkit. In August both AT and Archon announced that they would be merging. The effort was suggested by the Mellon Foundation which provided the initial funding for the development for both programs.
There are some significant similarities between the two programs-In addition to both being funded by a grant from the Mellon Foundation. Like Archivists’ Toolkit Archon was first released in 2006. Both are designed to implement EAD finding aids onto the web, both websites offer a “sandbox” for prospective users to explore the program before downloading.
The differences can be subtle and it may seem that both systems are practically identical but if one looks, for example, at the types of back end databases both use you begin to see the difference between the two programs. Whereas AT requires MySQL 5.0 (with the InnoDB storage engine), MS SQL Server 2005 (or higher) or Oracle 10g as a back end database Archon is designed to operate on a web server with PHP 5.0 or higher, MySQL version 5.0 and higher or MS SQL Server 7 and 2000 or a blank database.
The project combining the two programs is only in the early states. As mentioned on the Archivists’ Toolkit website the purpose of the merger is to combine “the best features of the Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon into a single hybrid application that will support description, collection management, and access of archival materials.”
But it could be some time before a new program is released. Activity on listservs such as ATUG-L indicate that the project is only in the very early stages. Regardless of when the new program is released it is clear to this student that given the track record of the designers of both Archivists’ Toolkit and Archon, whatever program that will emerge will probably be very good.
(n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Archon: http://www.archivists.org/
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Post No. 7 YALE UNIVERSITY COLLECTIONS COLLABORATIVE
The Yale University Collections Collaborative is an excellent website chronicling the implementation of Archivists’ Toolkit by a major institution. Its website can be found at:
http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/at/
To quote a statement found on the project’s homepage:
“The purpose of this project is two-fold: 1) install and test the AT as an open source collections management system; 2) examine the feasibility of establishing a Yale way of managing and tracking collections.”
The site maintains a number of resources including a “instruction/tutorial” section which has step by step tutorials regarding installation, how to set-up the program, accessioning, managing resources, names, name links, collection locations, subject fields, how to create reports and various customization options.
The site offers detailed documentation of their project including the original project proposal, and implementation plans. A particularly nice feature of this site is a blog maintained by those conducting the program chronicling their efforts. The most recent blog dates to October 25, 2009. Although the project is implemented by a large institution it is still of value to the lone archivist working at a smaller college or archive. The Yale project offers a glimpse into the experiences of those implementing Archivists’ Toolkit. If one is looking at AT and wondering if this is something they want to initiate in their own archive this gives a fairly good idea of what it will be like to implement the program. The resources provided at the Yale website also is yet another place where those who already have the program can go and get some ideas on any challenges they may be encountering.
(n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Yale University Collections Collaborative: http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/at/
http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/at/
To quote a statement found on the project’s homepage:
“The purpose of this project is two-fold: 1) install and test the AT as an open source collections management system; 2) examine the feasibility of establishing a Yale way of managing and tracking collections.”
The site maintains a number of resources including a “instruction/tutorial” section which has step by step tutorials regarding installation, how to set-up the program, accessioning, managing resources, names, name links, collection locations, subject fields, how to create reports and various customization options.
The site offers detailed documentation of their project including the original project proposal, and implementation plans. A particularly nice feature of this site is a blog maintained by those conducting the program chronicling their efforts. The most recent blog dates to October 25, 2009. Although the project is implemented by a large institution it is still of value to the lone archivist working at a smaller college or archive. The Yale project offers a glimpse into the experiences of those implementing Archivists’ Toolkit. If one is looking at AT and wondering if this is something they want to initiate in their own archive this gives a fairly good idea of what it will be like to implement the program. The resources provided at the Yale website also is yet another place where those who already have the program can go and get some ideas on any challenges they may be encountering.
(n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Yale University Collections Collaborative: http://www.library.yale.edu/mssa/at/
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Post No. 6 A Useful Listserv, ATUG-L
ATUG-L stands for “Archivists’ Toolkit User Group” frankly I am not sure what the “L” stands for. It is a listserv for users of Archivists Toolkit. You can find it on the web at:
https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/atug-l
In order to gain access you must of course sign up. The moderators make it clear that ATUG-L is a closed list and you can be denied membership, however the application process easy and was approved fairly quickly. Of all of the discussion groups and listservs I have seen out there this one is by far the most active. Though I have only been a member of the listerv since the middle of November I have already seen nine emails containing both queries and responses. This is not an overwhelming compilation of material to draw upon I know but, still does provide a sense of the kind of interaction and support one I think can expect from the group.
From the messages I have seen the dominant discussion surrounds specific problems with using Archivists’ Toolkit. From what I can tell the members of the list are “Lone Arrangers” or archivists working alone or with very limited staff. These individuals have installed the program themselves, and quite often with no IT support. On one occasion a user listed a problem with Archivists’ Toolkit recognizing a particular back end database -in this case MySQL, other messages have dealt with editing style sheets, and putting EAD finding aids into HTML. If my brief examination is any indication, ATUG-L is a helpful resource where users of Archivists’ Toolkit can go and get honest help from fellow users of the program.
(n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2009, from ATUG-L: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/atug-l
https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/atug-l
In order to gain access you must of course sign up. The moderators make it clear that ATUG-L is a closed list and you can be denied membership, however the application process easy and was approved fairly quickly. Of all of the discussion groups and listservs I have seen out there this one is by far the most active. Though I have only been a member of the listerv since the middle of November I have already seen nine emails containing both queries and responses. This is not an overwhelming compilation of material to draw upon I know but, still does provide a sense of the kind of interaction and support one I think can expect from the group.
From the messages I have seen the dominant discussion surrounds specific problems with using Archivists’ Toolkit. From what I can tell the members of the list are “Lone Arrangers” or archivists working alone or with very limited staff. These individuals have installed the program themselves, and quite often with no IT support. On one occasion a user listed a problem with Archivists’ Toolkit recognizing a particular back end database -in this case MySQL, other messages have dealt with editing style sheets, and putting EAD finding aids into HTML. If my brief examination is any indication, ATUG-L is a helpful resource where users of Archivists’ Toolkit can go and get honest help from fellow users of the program.
(n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2009, from ATUG-L: https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/atug-l
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Post No. 5 A NICE BLOG
An excellent resource of information on Archivist’s Toolkit is the many blogs out there by individual archivists who are actually working with the software. One such blog is Alone in the Archives: Thoughts from a “lone arranger” archivist at a small college http://lcb48.wordpress.com/ written by Linda Clark Benedict archivist at Hobart and William Smith Colleges.
Benedict has been a user of Archivist’s Toolkit since at least 2007 which makes her an early user of the program almost since its inception. Her most recent post-dating from May 2009 noted a recent completion of updating to version 1.5.9, or the last version before the current 2.0.
Benedict’s experience provides a nice perspective from someone who uses the program. As someone who is not a trained archivist (she notes that she started out working as an automation consultant for the Pioneer Library System and later became an archivist for the college) she admits, “The transition from library to archives took a while and I still learning every day.” This relates to the usability of Archivists Toolkit as a program designed not only for small institutions but one that can be used by individuals not necessarily trained as archivist. Benedict also points out that her student workers have little difficulty in entering in data into the program.
Benedict describes marking up finding aids and the learning process required to use the program. Initially she was taking a multi stepped approach using the program’s export EAD button, then taking the file to Notebook with the EAD Cookbook, then validating the document, and finally putting the file into HTML. After a while she discovered that Archivist’s Toolkit has a “Finding Aid Report” button which sidestepped most of this process.
Benedict also provides an example of an EAD finding aid online using the software - The Joseph J. Myler Collection of Half Dime Novels. The finding aid was originally put together using Microsoft Access but was later finished using Archivists Toolkit. The finished product can be viewed at: http://academic.hws.edu/library/archives/dime.asp.
Benedict’s blog also refers to the support one can expect in particular noting the reliance on other users of Archivist’s Toolkit. An early post related a story of how she and a fellow user tried to troubleshoot some problems with the program. In another post she makes mention of the supportive nature of others using the program, “It is so wonderful to send a question out into the void and actually get answers!”
Benedict’s blog is useful in that it provides insight into day to day work experience with Archivists Toolkit. Reading her blog one gets the picture of a program that is usable by a independent archivist but still has a few bugs that need to be worked out.
Benedict, L. C. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Alone in the Archives: Thoughts from a "lone arranger" archivist at a small college: http://lcb48.wordpress.com/
Benedict has been a user of Archivist’s Toolkit since at least 2007 which makes her an early user of the program almost since its inception. Her most recent post-dating from May 2009 noted a recent completion of updating to version 1.5.9, or the last version before the current 2.0.
Benedict’s experience provides a nice perspective from someone who uses the program. As someone who is not a trained archivist (she notes that she started out working as an automation consultant for the Pioneer Library System and later became an archivist for the college) she admits, “The transition from library to archives took a while and I still learning every day.” This relates to the usability of Archivists Toolkit as a program designed not only for small institutions but one that can be used by individuals not necessarily trained as archivist. Benedict also points out that her student workers have little difficulty in entering in data into the program.
Benedict describes marking up finding aids and the learning process required to use the program. Initially she was taking a multi stepped approach using the program’s export EAD button, then taking the file to Notebook with the EAD Cookbook, then validating the document, and finally putting the file into HTML. After a while she discovered that Archivist’s Toolkit has a “Finding Aid Report” button which sidestepped most of this process.
Benedict also provides an example of an EAD finding aid online using the software - The Joseph J. Myler Collection of Half Dime Novels. The finding aid was originally put together using Microsoft Access but was later finished using Archivists Toolkit. The finished product can be viewed at: http://academic.hws.edu/library/archives/dime.asp.
Benedict’s blog also refers to the support one can expect in particular noting the reliance on other users of Archivist’s Toolkit. An early post related a story of how she and a fellow user tried to troubleshoot some problems with the program. In another post she makes mention of the supportive nature of others using the program, “It is so wonderful to send a question out into the void and actually get answers!”
Benedict’s blog is useful in that it provides insight into day to day work experience with Archivists Toolkit. Reading her blog one gets the picture of a program that is usable by a independent archivist but still has a few bugs that need to be worked out.
Benedict, L. C. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2009, from Alone in the Archives: Thoughts from a "lone arranger" archivist at a small college: http://lcb48.wordpress.com/
Monday, November 16, 2009
Post No. 4 ARITCLE ON THE EARLY STAGES OF ARCHIVIST’S TOOLKIT
Perhaps it is the historian in me but sometimes I think when we look at technology we are often more interested in how things work now or try to project how new technology is going to affect us in the future. Less often we bother to look back to see how and why these new tools were created. Though not a complete history “The Archivists Toolkit: Another Step Toward Streamlined Archival Processing” by Bradley D. Westbrook et. al. and published in Journal of Archival Organization in 2006 was written when Archivists Toolkit was still in development and provides a nice overview of how and why the program was developed.
The authors note that the need an effective integrated management system for archival repositories has been around for a long time. The authors trace the evolution of technology, finding aids and electronic description tools. Though fining aid were originally drafted on typewriters or word processers. Collection level description was often done through MARC. In the 1990s different programs were developed to aid archival processing and description but it was the advent of EAD (Encoded Archival Description-a XML based markup language that enables archival finding aids to be put online) in the late 1990s that ultimately led to the development of Archivist’s Toolkit.
The article focuses primarily on the early phases of the project. The first year of the project was focused on assembling and equipping the project team, establishing functional requirements of the program, and crafting a formal set of specifications for the software. The objective of the project was “to reduce costs of archival processing by facilitating more efficient workflows and quicker throughput of archival information.” The core functions of the program would center on accessioning, de-accessioning, collection description, and location tracking. It is also clear that it was intended that the software be a free open source program from the beginning.
Written only three years ago, this article detailed about the beginnings of what would become an important open source collections management program. Between 20006 and 2009 Archivists Toolkit has evolved with multiple versions. Earlier this year it was announced that Archivists Toolkit and Archon, another respected collections management program, will be merging. Though still only in the early stages this merger emphasizes the fact that collection management software is on a continuous process of development and improvement.
Westbrook, B. D., Mandell, L., Shepherd, K., Stevens, B., & Varghese, J. (2006). The Archivists' Toolkit: Another Step Toward Streamlined Archival Processing. Journal of Archival Organization, Vol. 4 Issue 1/2 , 229-253.
The authors note that the need an effective integrated management system for archival repositories has been around for a long time. The authors trace the evolution of technology, finding aids and electronic description tools. Though fining aid were originally drafted on typewriters or word processers. Collection level description was often done through MARC. In the 1990s different programs were developed to aid archival processing and description but it was the advent of EAD (Encoded Archival Description-a XML based markup language that enables archival finding aids to be put online) in the late 1990s that ultimately led to the development of Archivist’s Toolkit.
The article focuses primarily on the early phases of the project. The first year of the project was focused on assembling and equipping the project team, establishing functional requirements of the program, and crafting a formal set of specifications for the software. The objective of the project was “to reduce costs of archival processing by facilitating more efficient workflows and quicker throughput of archival information.” The core functions of the program would center on accessioning, de-accessioning, collection description, and location tracking. It is also clear that it was intended that the software be a free open source program from the beginning.
Written only three years ago, this article detailed about the beginnings of what would become an important open source collections management program. Between 20006 and 2009 Archivists Toolkit has evolved with multiple versions. Earlier this year it was announced that Archivists Toolkit and Archon, another respected collections management program, will be merging. Though still only in the early stages this merger emphasizes the fact that collection management software is on a continuous process of development and improvement.
Westbrook, B. D., Mandell, L., Shepherd, K., Stevens, B., & Varghese, J. (2006). The Archivists' Toolkit: Another Step Toward Streamlined Archival Processing. Journal of Archival Organization, Vol. 4 Issue 1/2 , 229-253.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Post No. 3 CLIR REPORT
This post will highlight a resource that would be valuable for any archivist working for a small institution. Earlier this year, in January, the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR ) published Archival Management Software: A Report for the Council on Library and Information Resources. Written by Lisa Spiro the report is perhaps one of the more important resources out there regarding not only Archivist’s Toolkit but available technological resources in general. The 119 page document can be found at: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/spiro2009.html.
The report was written as a means to examine the problem of backlogs within archives and how software can help make archives more efficient and their collections more accessible. Spiro examines a number of collection management programs including Archon, Archivists' Toolkit (AT), Cuadra STAR, Eloquent Archive and Collective Access. But the author makes it clear that she is not evaluating the different programs but rather “this report compares features and reports on the experiences of archivists in implementing them.”
Spiro points out that “No single archival management system will be appropriate for every archive, given the variation in technical support available at the institution and the need for particular features.” But she offers criteria for deciding which software to use.
· Automating the processing and description of collections through the archival management system versus generating EAD by hand and managing collections through other software
· Open source versus commercial-noting that this is perhaps the most “fundamental choice that archives will make”
· Weather the system is Hosted on the server of another company or a local institution
· Cost
· Sustainability
· Quality of customer support
· Support for archival standards
· Web-based versus desktop client
· Support for publishing finding aids online versus generating EAD for export
· Support for linking to digital objects
· Support for collection management
· Reports, statistics, and project management
· Reliability and maturity
Roughly 20 pages of the report are dedicated to an in-depth examination of five different software programs including Archivist’s Toolkit. The section dealing with Archivists Toolkit consists of excellent commentary from five archivists who use the software. She breaks downs the comments into seven sections covering such subjects as Reasons for Selecting AT, Ease of use, installation and maintenacne, easoe of customization, the user comminites, weaknesses and strenghts.
Overall Spiro’s report is valuable for two reasons. It is a valuable tool for any archivist, especially ones working in small institutions, who is faced with making a decision about what program to use. Using this report an archivist should be able to make an informed decision with the overall impression that whatever you decide to do there are positives and negatives and that you really should carefully look both at the programs and at the unique needs of your institution. The report is also important in the information it provides on a number of software programs including Archivist’s Toolkit. Taken as a whole the comments seem to indicate a general satisfaction with Archivists Toolkit but that it is still a work in progress and there remains some problems to be worked out.
Spiro, L. (n.d.). Archival Management Software: A Report for the Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from Council on Library and Information Resouces: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/spiro2009.html
The report was written as a means to examine the problem of backlogs within archives and how software can help make archives more efficient and their collections more accessible. Spiro examines a number of collection management programs including Archon, Archivists' Toolkit (AT), Cuadra STAR, Eloquent Archive and Collective Access. But the author makes it clear that she is not evaluating the different programs but rather “this report compares features and reports on the experiences of archivists in implementing them.”
Spiro points out that “No single archival management system will be appropriate for every archive, given the variation in technical support available at the institution and the need for particular features.” But she offers criteria for deciding which software to use.
· Automating the processing and description of collections through the archival management system versus generating EAD by hand and managing collections through other software
· Open source versus commercial-noting that this is perhaps the most “fundamental choice that archives will make”
· Weather the system is Hosted on the server of another company or a local institution
· Cost
· Sustainability
· Quality of customer support
· Support for archival standards
· Web-based versus desktop client
· Support for publishing finding aids online versus generating EAD for export
· Support for linking to digital objects
· Support for collection management
· Reports, statistics, and project management
· Reliability and maturity
Roughly 20 pages of the report are dedicated to an in-depth examination of five different software programs including Archivist’s Toolkit. The section dealing with Archivists Toolkit consists of excellent commentary from five archivists who use the software. She breaks downs the comments into seven sections covering such subjects as Reasons for Selecting AT, Ease of use, installation and maintenacne, easoe of customization, the user comminites, weaknesses and strenghts.
Overall Spiro’s report is valuable for two reasons. It is a valuable tool for any archivist, especially ones working in small institutions, who is faced with making a decision about what program to use. Using this report an archivist should be able to make an informed decision with the overall impression that whatever you decide to do there are positives and negatives and that you really should carefully look both at the programs and at the unique needs of your institution. The report is also important in the information it provides on a number of software programs including Archivist’s Toolkit. Taken as a whole the comments seem to indicate a general satisfaction with Archivists Toolkit but that it is still a work in progress and there remains some problems to be worked out.
Spiro, L. (n.d.). Archival Management Software: A Report for the Council on Library and Information Resources. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from Council on Library and Information Resouces: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/spiro2009.html
Monday, October 26, 2009
Post No. 2 SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS
http://www.archivists.org/
It is difficult to talk about any significant archival resource without at some point discussing the Society of American Archivists (SAA). The SAA is the seminal organization for archivists in the United States. Its journal -The American Archivist- is a key source of professional information for anyone working in the field. In 2008 SAA awarded the Archivists Toolkit with the C.F.W. Coker Award. As written on the website: “The award recognizes finding aids, finding aid systems, innovative development in archival description, or descriptive tools that enable archivists to produce more effective finding aids.”
The SAA also provides a forum for those in the profession to help each other learn and understand this important tool. There is a recently formed (February 2009) roundtable dedicated to the Archivists Toolkit. Another place to find information is in a roundtable focused on “Lonearrangers” or independent working archivists. At the moment the comments of the discussion board is limited, however this is not meant as a criticism of the SAA nor of the members who participate on its website. If anything the discussion board points to the fact that Archivists Toolkit is but one of several programs both open source and on the market that is being used by smaller members of the profession. The comments on the discussion board indicate that some like it, some don’t, but the same can be said for Past Perfect or any of the other programs. A review of the SAA website reveals-at least to this aspiring archivist- that Archivists Toolkit is but one of many choices that archivists must face when making decisions for their organization. But that if one has questions, there are resources out there in the form of help from fellow professionals.
(n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Society of American Archivists : http://www.archivists.org/
It is difficult to talk about any significant archival resource without at some point discussing the Society of American Archivists (SAA). The SAA is the seminal organization for archivists in the United States. Its journal -The American Archivist- is a key source of professional information for anyone working in the field. In 2008 SAA awarded the Archivists Toolkit with the C.F.W. Coker Award. As written on the website: “The award recognizes finding aids, finding aid systems, innovative development in archival description, or descriptive tools that enable archivists to produce more effective finding aids.”
The SAA also provides a forum for those in the profession to help each other learn and understand this important tool. There is a recently formed (February 2009) roundtable dedicated to the Archivists Toolkit. Another place to find information is in a roundtable focused on “Lonearrangers” or independent working archivists. At the moment the comments of the discussion board is limited, however this is not meant as a criticism of the SAA nor of the members who participate on its website. If anything the discussion board points to the fact that Archivists Toolkit is but one of several programs both open source and on the market that is being used by smaller members of the profession. The comments on the discussion board indicate that some like it, some don’t, but the same can be said for Past Perfect or any of the other programs. A review of the SAA website reveals-at least to this aspiring archivist- that Archivists Toolkit is but one of many choices that archivists must face when making decisions for their organization. But that if one has questions, there are resources out there in the form of help from fellow professionals.
(n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Society of American Archivists : http://www.archivists.org/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)