John’s message reminded me that at Duke, our repository items have externally-minted and persistent ARKs. When we created digital object records in ASpace based on our repository objects using the service I described previously, we store those ARKs in the digital object identifier field in ArchivesSpace. So, basically we have two identifiers that connect records in ArchivesSpace with records in our repository (the refID and the ARK). In our shop, the refID is really useful for starting and facilitating the digitization workflow, but the ARK is more stable.
I’m still not sure we have the most elegant setup and there are a lot of identifiers floating around, but it seems to be working for us so far… -Noah From: archivesspace_users_group-boun...@lyralists.lyrasis.org <archivesspace_users_group-boun...@lyralists.lyrasis.org> On Behalf Of Rees, John (NIH/NLM) [E] Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:59 AM To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group@lyralists.lyrasis.org> Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Component unique identifiers Wow, this is super helpful. We’ve been noodling on a similar use case. All our existing repository projects leverage our MARC 035 field ids (Voyager ILS-supplied) to mint ids/Fedora PIDs, but now we’re embarking on ASpace projects that don’t always have a Voyager record, or have ID minting practices from other external systems that we can’t replicate in ASpace - or maybe don’t want to. We’re still struggling with what the ID should actually be – we’re wary of using internally-generated IDs. John John P. Rees Archivist and Digital Resources Manager History of Medicine Division National Library of Medicine 301-827-4510 From: Rachel Aileen Searcy <rachel.sea...@nyu.edu<mailto:rachel.sea...@nyu.edu>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 9:38 AM To: Archivesspace Users Group <archivesspace_users_group@lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:archivesspace_users_group@lyralists.lyrasis.org>> Subject: Re: [Archivesspace_Users_Group] Component unique identifiers Hi Adrienne, We had a similar issue here at NYU. Previous digitization projects relied on the shorter Archivist's Toolkit refids for file naming, but this became untenable with those created by ArchivesSpace. We didn't want to change our inter-departmental workflows too radically, so we contracted with HM to develop a plugin called the Digitization Work Order plugin (here on github<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_hudmol_digitization-5Fwork-5Forder&d=DwMGaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=F0JE8U9-xhxe_nE7d7aEUi-uqfKqvYJ222bS0oz9mko&m=egSNa_E82CniRdk2kD1V-niZbqO7XVArIMZPAwDN1cs&s=T7i8Vt9h589_N4UGea1yf4aXt6K5RSTeDqaAG4Tcg3U&e=>). This plugin allows the user to select individual components from a resource record (including all if desired), which are then assigned sequential component unique identifiers that can be used for file naming or other purposes. The plugin also produces a csv of descriptive information of those components, and automatically inserts this newly created identifier into the components Component Unique Identifier field. We have some demo slides here<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__guides.nyu.edu_ld.php-3Fcontent-5Fid-3D26740399&d=DwMGaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=F0JE8U9-xhxe_nE7d7aEUi-uqfKqvYJ222bS0oz9mko&m=egSNa_E82CniRdk2kD1V-niZbqO7XVArIMZPAwDN1cs&s=sxduklMTsEb7_XFdBr5_vnRGHkUGLA6omAWn1IGBo1s&e=>, as well as instructions<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_11kWxbFTazB6q5fDNBWDHJxMf3wdVsp8cd7HzjEhE-2Dao_edit&d=DwMGaQ&c=imBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj_gZ4adc&r=F0JE8U9-xhxe_nE7d7aEUi-uqfKqvYJ222bS0oz9mko&m=egSNa_E82CniRdk2kD1V-niZbqO7XVArIMZPAwDN1cs&s=fOyyOc5DCDx0rAcVskO3M1WWo02JAOrFVrU1bGprZQ4&e=> in our local ArchivesSpace manual. I'd also be happy to talk further to answer any questions. Best, Rachel On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:54 PM Chris Mayo <ma...@bc.edu<mailto:ma...@bc.edu>> wrote: Hi Adrienne, We ran into a similar issue at Boston College when we migrated from to ASpace from Toolkit. Our practice had been to combine the collection ID with an auto-generated refID to create component unique identifiers, but the auto-generated refIDs in Aspace were much too long for our needs. What we eventually wound up doing is using the database primary key for a given archival object as the unique part of its component unique ID, so that any given for an archival object we're planning to digitize gets a CUI with the format of 'mmsID_NNNNN" where the numerical portion is pulled from the 'archival_object_NNNNN' at the end of the archival object's URL. The really handy part of this is that it lets us parse our CUIs to make API calls. It's also robust to rearrangement, if you are only moving the archival object around within the collection hierarchy - the database key remains the same. It doesn't survive reprocessing, however, if you are deleting/rebuilding/combining archival objects, so we always make sure to begin the process of digitization after a collection has been processed or reprocessed. It makes the CUIs somewhat semantically meaningful - but only if you know what you are looking at. We're still not sure how we feel about that, but it's what works for us for now. Hope that helps! Best, Chris On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:00 AM Pruitt, Adrienne <adrienne.pru...@tufts.edu<mailto:adrienne.pru...@tufts.edu>> wrote: Hello, all, We’re hoping to move away from semantically meaningful component unique identifiers, but need some way to be able to easily auto-generate a unique identifier that could be used for file-naming purposes in digitization projects. Working with legacy data, we have seen that there can be value in being able to easily associate a binary file floating around on a server somewhere with a relatively easily parsed identifier that links it to its related metadata. However, semantically meaningful identifiers based on collection structure are a rather brittle system prone to breaking when collections are rearranged or reprocessed and easy to mis-enter when working with so many digits. We’re interested to hear how others are handling their identifiers (particularly in regards to digitization workflows.) Thank you! Adrienne Pruitt | Collections Management Archivist Digital Collections and Archives Tufts University adrienne.pru...@tufts.edu<mailto:adrienne.pru...@tufts.edu> |617-627-0957 _______________________________________________ Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list Archivesspace_Users_Group@lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:Archivesspace_Users_Group@lyralists.lyrasis.org> http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lyralists.lyrasis.org_mailman_listinfo_archivesspace-5Fusers-5Fgroup&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=WwSkYr7X9POdZNK4180yTjrK5hSljcuCPIN--y1VRZk&m=S8ME4Fo5XAeEtz-SEJljWkmvBYIPb_6ILuGWdUkOXtE&s=fTvu_1amNaLXp4WRGkvgY0OdpV3LaA82ly7l70dQZjc&e=> -- Chris Mayo Digital Production Librarian Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Library Boston College chris.m...@bc.edu<mailto:chris.m...@bc.edu> _______________________________________________ Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list Archivesspace_Users_Group@lyralists.lyrasis.org<mailto:Archivesspace_Users_Group@lyralists.lyrasis.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lyralists.lyrasis.org_mailman_listinfo_archivesspace-5Fusers-5Fgroup&d=DwICAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=WwSkYr7X9POdZNK4180yTjrK5hSljcuCPIN--y1VRZk&m=S8ME4Fo5XAeEtz-SEJljWkmvBYIPb_6ILuGWdUkOXtE&s=fTvu_1amNaLXp4WRGkvgY0OdpV3LaA82ly7l70dQZjc&e= -- Rachel Searcy Accessioning Archivist, Archival Collections Management New York University Libraries 212.998.2539 | rachel.sea...@nyu.edu<mailto:rachel.sea...@nyu.edu>
_______________________________________________ Archivesspace_Users_Group mailing list Archivesspace_Users_Group@lyralists.lyrasis.org http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/mailman/listinfo/archivesspace_users_group
