Feature #5055

Create DACS plug-in

Added by Jessica Bushey about 9 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.

Status:VerifiedStart date:05/08/2013
Priority:HighDue date:
Assignee:Dan Gillean% Done:

80%

Category:Standards complianceEstimated time:24.00 hours
Target version:Release 2.1.0
Google Code Legacy ID: Tested version:
Sponsored:No Requires documentation:

Description

Create DACS plug-in for AtoM

Step 1:
Consult DACS standard (new revised version attached to this issue) and list data entry fields to support development work.
Mark mandatory fields.

Step 2:
Development work on DACS plug-in

DACS2E-2013.pdf (1 MB) Jessica Bushey, 06/17/2013 09:46 AM

DACS-ISAD_Crosswalk.ods - DACS - ISAD crosswalk with required fields (14.4 KB) Dan Gillean, 06/25/2013 04:37 PM

dacs-specialized-notes.png (16.7 KB) Dan Gillean, 11/19/2013 04:42 PM


Related issues

Related to Access to Memory (AtoM) - Feature #5481: Add DACS tooltips Verified 08/17/2013
Related to Access to Memory (AtoM) - Bug #5482: Map ISAD 3.7.3 (Dates of creation) to DACS 8.1.5 (Archivi... New 08/17/2013

History

#1 Updated by Jessica Bushey almost 9 years ago

#2 Updated by Dan Gillean almost 9 years ago

  • File DACS-ISAD_Crosswalk.xlsx added

Spreadsheet with DACS fields, crosswalked to ISAD, and required fields has been attached.

There are only a few places where the standard does not crosswalk 1:1 with the ISAD template: these have been marked in blue on the spreadsheet.

  1. DACS 4.2 (physical access) and 4.3 (technical access) both would map to ISAD 3.4.4 (physical characteristics and technical requirements). We should consider if we want to concatenate these results when switching from DACS --> ISAD, as well as how we want to handle the information when it is entered on the ISAD template, and then switched to DACS/
  2. DACS 8.1.5 (Archivist and date) sort of crosswalks to both ISAD 3.7.3 (Date(s) of descriptions) and 3.7.3 (Archivist's note) - except that Archivist's note allows for explanations of HOW the description was prepared, while in DACS, 8.1.5 seems to be intended solely for a name and date. Again, we will want to consider how we wish to handle template switches going both ways in AtoM.
  3. Dates in DACS can include dates of:
    • Creation
    • Record-keeping activity ("dates during which the unit being described was created, assembled, accumulated, and/or maintained and used as a unit the conduct of affairs by the organization or individual responsible for its provenance. They are distinct from dates of creation of individual documents... when dates of creation and dates of record-keeping activity are the same, record only the former. Dates of record-keeping are most often recorded by archivists working with government records, organizational archives, or other materials where it is important to account for functions and activities.")
    • Publication
    • Broadcast

Because there is otherwise such a direct equivalence, this template should not be too hard to implement based on the original ISAD template - it will involve some label changes, but otherwise is mostly good as it. Similarly, in most cases, the EAD export profile will require no changes from the ISAD template, except perhaps in the above use cases.

#3 Updated by Dan Gillean almost 9 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Dan Gillean to Jesús García Crespo

Assigning to Jesus for triage and determination of next steps.

#4 Updated by Dan Gillean almost 9 years ago

  • File deleted (DACS-ISAD_Crosswalk.xlsx)

#6 Updated by Jesús García Crespo almost 9 years ago

  • Estimated time set to 24.00

#7 Updated by Jesús García Crespo almost 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to QA/Review

Done! Added a couple of extra issues: #5481 and #5482 for some extra features related but not so important.

#8 Updated by Dan Gillean over 8 years ago

  • Status changed from QA/Review to Feedback
  • Target version changed from Release 2.0.0 to Release 2.1.0

I think I will have to do a more thorough review of this template later - will also have to test the EAD export against the recommended crosswalk included in the standard itself - we should match that as much as possible for DACS. Right now: I noted that Dates only include creation and accumulation types - we'll need to add publication, broadcast, and consider how we want to implement the recordkeeping activity date type (maybe the same, maybe different).

#9 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 8 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Jesús García Crespo to Dan Gillean

It sounds like you should be the assignee.

#10 Updated by Dan Gillean over 8 years ago

In reviewing the template recently, I have noted that we lack the specialized notes included in DACS. These are very similar to the notes found in RAD, and we can reuse the same interface. I've attached a quick wireframe of how it could look - but this is when i was imagining having the Notes field stay as it is, and adding a second multi-value field for "Specialized notes". If it is easier, we could just call the whole thing "Notes", and include a "General notes" as the default/top value in the drop-down.

The tooltips for the specialized notes section is already on https://www.qubit-toolkit.org/wiki/Tooltips#DACS_edit_form_tooltips. If we do combine the existing note field and the specialized notes, this may need revision.

#11 Updated by Dan Gillean over 8 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Dan Gillean to Jesús García Crespo

I've reviewed the EAD export we have currently from this template, vs. the recommendations in the crosswalk, and things are looking good. Still to do with this template are:

  • the things noted in comments 2 and 8 above - different date types need to be addressed (publication, broadcast, record-keeping activity), and the physical access/technical access information needs to be concatenated on export into <phystech> with a line break between the two values (and ideally a solution when switching to ISAD template too - but less important)
  • Issue #5481
  • The specialized notes revision outlined in comment 10 above
  • The addition of the tooltips as outlined on issue #5482

Then we are good to go!

#12 Updated by Dan Gillean over 8 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Jesús García Crespo to José Raddaoui Marín
  • Target version changed from Release 2.1.0 to Release 2.0.1
  • % Done changed from 0 to 80

Radda, after discussing with Jesus, I'm assigning this to you and tentatively putting it to 2.0.1, as we'd like to have the fixes done before my first presentation in the US, January 2014. Client work remains top priority, but if we can get this into 2.0.1 (which is looking like Dec now) that would be awesome!

Two more notes:

1) We should add the new "related descriptions" autocomplete field that we added to the ISAD and RAD templates to this one as well. In the DACS template, it should appear in the "Related materials elements" area, just below the free-text field for "Related archival materials".

2) For the date-type of "record-keeping activity" discussed in comments 2 and 8 above - after much back and forth, and a return to the standard, I still think this should remain with the other date types in the dropdown - creation, publication, broadcast, and record-keeping activity.

#13 Updated by Jessica Bushey over 8 years ago

  • Assignee changed from José Raddaoui Marín to Jesús García Crespo

#14 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 8 years ago

  • Target version changed from Release 2.0.1 to Release 2.0.2

#15 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 7 years ago

  • Target version changed from Release 2.0.2 to Release 2.1.0

#16 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to In progress

#17 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from In progress to QA/Review
  • Assignee changed from Jesús García Crespo to Dan Gillean

In 90f7621615ea818bc772c2c9babd4833457822e9 I have fixed the following items:

  • Added Specialized note(s) and renamed the old notes field to General note(s)
  • Added relatedMaterialDescriptions field
  • Add new event type Record-keeping activity, showed along with exiting types Creation, Publication and Broadcast

Related tickets:

  • #???? (phystech stuff, not filed yet) - Dan suggested to use @type (physical access, technical access) instead of concatenating
  • #5482

#18 Updated by Dan Gillean over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from QA/Review to Feedback

Types of dates are incorrect:

Currently in template:
  • Custody
  • Creation
  • Publication
  • Record-keeping activity
Should be:
  • Broadcast
  • Creation
  • Publication
  • Record-keeping activity

If "custody" was in there because it was included before and we don't want to mess with legacy data - so be it, we can leave it in. But broadcast should be added

Tooltip for specialized note was also missing, but I think a fix for this has already been pushed.

#19 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to QA/Review

#20 Updated by Jesús García Crespo over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from QA/Review to Verified

Also available in: Atom PDF