[ICA-EGAD-RiC] FW: Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC

[Faith F. Charlton]

Sorry all-

Please see the link below to access our Google doc.

Best,
Faith
________________________________
Faith Charlton
Lead Processing Archivist, Manuscript Division Collections
Princeton University Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
609-258-3223
faithc at princeton.edu<mailto:faithc at princeton.edu>

From: Regine I. Heberlein
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:08 AM
To: Mark A. Matienzo; Faith F. Charlton
Cc: ica-egad-ric at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: RE: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC

Mark et al.,

This is the link to our Google doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5FjboiAtXasJXalUlT5_zgA6u9sKvTtmO2qlOMFFe0/edit?usp=sharing

Cheers,

Regine

Regine Heberlein
Principal Cataloger and Metadata Analyst, Rare Book Collections
Princeton University Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
609-258-6156

From: Mark A. Matienzo [mailto:mark.matienzo at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 8:58 PM
To: Faith F. Charlton
Cc: ica-egad-ric at lists.village.Virginia.EDU<mailto:ica-egad-ric at lists.village.Virginia.EDU>; Regine I. Heberlein
Subject: Re: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC

Dear Faith -

It appears that the attachment was not included in your message, which I've noticed in a few other messages to this list. Could you provide a link to a web-accessbile version of Princeton's comments or send me a copy separately?

Best,
Mark


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Faith F. Charlton <faithc at princeton.edu<mailto:faithc at princeton.edu>> wrote:
Good evening,

Princeton did send in its comments on the draft to EGAD before the deadline, but we wanted to share them via the listserv as well (please see attached). :) Being afforded the opportunity to participate in this exciting endeavor is much appreciated.

To restate our introduction, the PUL-RBSC RiC Response Team would like to congratulate EGAD on a high-quality first draft for a long-overdue conceptual model. We are particularly pleased to see a critical discussion of the limiting aspects of hitherto-monolithic concepts such as provenance and original order as well as the introduction of Record Set, which promises to eliminate silent practices of "shoehorning" that have always sat uncomfortable, if seemingly inevitable, with many practitioners. The following comments are meant to address three larger points:
The notion of "archival" vs. resource description;
The narrow focus on "linguistic, symbolic, or graphic information" and absence of an entity to accommodate non-symbolic items commonly found in archival collections; and
The conflation of content, carrier, and container resulting from the discrepancy between the narrow definition of a record as a symbolic entity and some of its properties, which pertain to its physical carrier or storage container.
In addition, we seek clarification on the concepts of collection re-use and analog records, as well as some specific elements and property sets.

Best,
Faith
_______________________________
Faith Charlton
Lead Processing Archivist, Manuscript Division Collections
Princeton University Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
609-258-3223<tel:609-258-3223>
faithc at princeton.edu<mailto:faithc at princeton.edu><mailto:faithc at princeton.edu<mailto:faithc at princeton.edu>>


_______________________________________________
ICA-EGAD-RiC mailing list
ICA-EGAD-RiC at lists.village.Virginia.EDU<mailto:ICA-EGAD-RiC at lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/ica-egad-ric