Issues we ran into include:
Call Numbers
​
Archival items don’t have a traditional call number, which this particular project calls for. To remedy this we’ve included a traditional (theoretical) call number and created an accession number, which the items would be shelved by. To create this number we used a three letter collection code + four number year + two number month + four numbers beginning with 0001, which increase as new items are accessioned in the same collection.
​
Equivalent Entries
Although OCLC and ArchivesGrid (a service of OCLC) provide a channel for institutions to catalog archival collections in a traditional library outlet (as opposed to cultural institution specific outlets such as PastPerfect, XML EAD encoding, etc.), they aren’t widely utilized. This, combined with the unique nature of archival items, means new items will need new records created for them with little assistance from co-op resources (as opposed to books which can often be pulled from a co-op location).
​
Core Fields
​
Because MARC, RDA, and DACS requirements are closely aligned but not exact, developing a “core” list of standards to include, and what information to include, often becomes a judgement call. Even then, there needs to be some flexibility about how to handle these standards depending on the item’s nature. In particular, this came up when addressing:
-
Publisher’s Name
-
Edition
Subject Headings
​
For the most part, we allowed the records we pulled from determine the subject headings. That said, many of the subject headings felt gendered and fell prey to the SCAMP structure. For example, nearly all of the subject headings relating to Alice Roosevelt were in relation to her father instead of featuring her as her own entity or classified works about her to general or geographically based subject headings (IE Washington D.C. or United States). There were similar findings when trying to apply subject headings related to Eleanor Roosevelt. One would think the subject heading “First ladies” or “President’s spouses-- United States” would be applicable but the gendered and narrow focus of these subject headings don’t allow for unique identity.