Encoded Archival Description on the Internet

Citation

Frean, N. (2003), "Encoded Archival Description on the Internet", Online Information Review, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 369-369. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520310503602

This collection of papers outlines the background and discusses the professional implications of one DTD (Document Type Definition) – EAD, or Encoded Archival Description, from its development in the USA from 1993 on, to its application internationally. EAD is a data structure standard in XML that enables archivists to sustain their provenance‐based, hierarchical descriptions in searchable form on the Internet. While many archivists in North America, Europe and Australasia have recognised its potential, adoption so far has generally been by large institutions or consortial approaches. Given the tools and education, EAD's use will continue to spread.

The articles provide informative overviews of three areas. First, the nature of archival description and how it differs from bibliographic cataloguing, the existing standards, and the development of EAD and of XML. These papers extend the useful 1998 publication Encoded Archival Description: context, theory and case studies (edited by Jackie M. Dooley, SAA, 1998). Kent Haworth compares basic archival descriptive principles with the bibliographic MARC format and describes how the hierarchical structure of archival finding aids is accommodated. Janice E. Ruth rehearses the history of the Berkeley Finding Aid Project and the version 1.0 release of EAD – both these articles cover the international aims of the standard. Michael Fox reviews the complexities of descriptive practice, a taxonomy for cataloguing standards, and the standards ISAD(G) and MARC. Steven Hensen argues that the emergence of EAD does not obviate the creation of MARC cataloguing records for archival materials. Most of these papers comment also on the need for a companion data content standard, particularly for contextual information about the creators of archival records.

Second come stories of major applications – projects to create union databases of EAD encoded finding aids, to provide training and an online service by subscription, to develop a hierarchical Internet catalogue for the Public Record Office in the UK, and EAD's compatibility with museum descriptive practices and standards. These papers all give the flavour of professionals in major institutions cooperating to encode from a variety of predecessor systems and local practices. They also contain nuggets of practical advice.

Finally, there are two more speculative papers – an overview of implications for archival reference service, and an outline of EAD's potential as an archival information system beyond the traditional finding aid – both discuss future resource implications.

As a whole, these eleven articles convey EAD's acceptance by archivists and their huge consortial efforts to improve and share information. Although co‐published as a Journal of Internet Cataloguing issue they work well as a book, and should be read by archivists and perhaps by their managers. This is not a tool to give the IT specialist, encoding contractor, or project manager, but is an important marker in the continuing efforts of the professional archival community to establish standards and best practices.