Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Introduction

The adopters of CollectionSpace represent a wide range of different museum domains. In order to facilitate adoption that takes advantage of configuration work completed by existing implementers, extension sets supporting specific communities of practice are being designed and developed by the CollectionSpace program team. The extension sets, consisting of schema extensions, procedures, and vocabularies supporting domain-specific practices (e.g. propagation for botanical gardens or digital migration for variable media), are available on this wiki. Development work is underway that will allow new implementers to select a community-vetted extension set as the starting point for their own installation of CollectionSpace.

Draft Local History and Materials Culture domain extension set

The CollectionSpace DRAFT local history and material culture domain extension set is based on work done by the Pope County Historical Society. Extensions for Cataloging have been created; these extensions can be viewed via maps which compare the default CollectionSpace data model to several community standards as well as the schema implemented at Pope County. The next step in the process is taking these draft maps and sharing them with the wider local history and material culture community in order to:

  • ensure that the majority of fields necessary to properly document and manage a local history collection are present
  • ensure that fields that are in the CollectionSpace core data model but not relevant to local history collections are removed
  • ensure that deployment-specific fields, useful only to the organization originating the extension set are removed

How to Review and Comment

  1. Visit the Review and Comment wiki page for each procedure and vocabulary
  2. Review the fields present, and ask the following questions in relation to your organization:
    1. Is this procedure or vocabulary necessary to manage our collections?
    2. If so, are all the fields needed to manage our collection present? If not, what would we need to add?
    3. Are there field that are not useful? If so, what would we delete?
  3. Contribute your comments directly via the comment box at the bottom of the wiki page
  4. Stay tuned for further iterations as community critiques are factored in

Additional Procedures and Authorities; Configuration but No Extensions Recommended

Procedures and Authorities not Recommended for the Local History and Material Culture Profile

Procedure or Authority Name

Configuration and Data Maps

Work Authority

Configuration and Data Map - Work Authority

Reports

As important as the ways in which we get data into the system are the ways in which we get data out. On the Reporting Review and Comment Page - LHMC, you can post sample reports, make requests for useful reports, and more. 

Data and Configuration Maps

To learn more about how CollectionSpace Data and Configuration Maps are formatted, visit the Configuration and Data Map Templates page.


  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. I didn't see comment pages for a couple of things, so I'm putting thoughts here. I see in the Cataloging Map that Nomenclature 3.0 is listed. FYI - Nomenclature 4.0 is being released at the end of this month. Any possibility of them making the Nomenclature 4.0 classifications and terms available to pull into CS as controlled vocab? The big downside of Chenhall is having to sit with the unwieldy book and physically look up the classification or standardized terms for everything. Getty has something going with it being online. 

  2. My other overall comment/ question. I'm glad to see some specific photograph, archival, and library templates in here. Especially since many small local history organizations only use one collections management system for both archival materials and object collections. On the other hand, are these templates intended for item level description of those photos or archival items? I ask because there is an inherent difference in how object collections and archival collections are cataloged. Object collections are cataloged on the item level, but archival practice dictates that archival collections are described at the collection level using finding aids. In other words not every one of the 200 items that make up the "Smith Papers" will have an individual object description, but instead the collection is described as a whole. In a perfect world every place would have one collection management system for their object collection and a separate archives management system (ex: ArchivesSpace) for their archival documents. In the real world that isn't practical for everyone, so the question of making one system work for both comes into question.

    Have any professional archivists been consulted on the photograph, archives, or library template in terms of making it easy and usable for the local history crowd while also adhering to and hitting all of the standards of archival practice? I would think someone from the ArchivesSpace community would be more than happy to throw in their two cents worth and it might add some valuable insight from that side of the spectrum.