Archival Science

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 217–238 | Cite as

Context-based aggregation of archival data: the role of authority records in the semantic landscape

  • Ricardo Eito-BrunEmail author
Original Paper


The formal release of Encoded Archival Context for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF) in 2010 added the need to deal with an additional standard to encode context and authority records. But the possibilities of EAC-CPF go beyond the control of authority records and access points, and this standard constitutes a relevant milestone in the definition of a complex archival information system made up of interconnected, cross-linked records. Based on eXtensible Markup Language, EAC-CPF makes possible the design of semantically rich browsing experiences that give access to distributed description of records and to the detailed data of the persons, corporate bodies, or families that created them. This paper presents a collaboration framework for archival information systems that exploits the relationships built between finding aids and shared context and authority records encoded in EAC-CPF. The proposed architecture is built on top of a set of software components that interact using open information retrieval, content aggregation, and semantic data standards. On top of this architecture, different user-oriented solutions can be built to browse and explore the contents of the aggregated collections. One of these applications is a navigational aid or topic map that serves as a semantically enriched access layer and ensures the location of the records held by different archives. The proposed architecture can be applied to solve different information access challenges that require a single point of access to distributed data. It can be deployed or mapped to existing technical architectures to improve the interaction of users with a set of networked repositories.


XTM RDF Metadata aggregation Engineering archives Descriptive metadata standards EAC-CPF 


  1. Bak G, Pam A (2008) Points of convergence: seamless long-term access to digital publications and archival records at library and archives Canada. Arch Sci 8:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bountouri L, Gergatsoulis M (2009) Interoperability between archival and bibliographic metadata: an EAD to MODS crosswalk. J Libr Metadata 9(1):98–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clavaud F, Sévigny M (2005) Controlling the production of EAD encoded documents, extracting metadata and publishing them on the web: methods and tools France. J Arch Org 3(2/3):147–169Google Scholar
  4. Cornish A (2004) Using a native XML database for encoded archival description search and retrieval. Inf Technol Libr 23(4):181Google Scholar
  5. Gilliland-Swetland AJ (1998) Evaluation design for large-scale, collaborative online archives: interim report of the online archive of California evaluation project. Arch Mus Informatics 12(3/4):177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hill A, Stockting B, Higgins S (2005) Different strokes for different folks: presenting EAD in three UK online catalogues. J Arch Org 3(2/3):183–206Google Scholar
  7. Huvila I (2008) Participatory archive: towards decentralised curation, radical user orientation, and broader contextualisation of records management. Arch Sci 8:15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Imhof A (2008) Using International Standards to develop a union catalogue for archives in Germany: Aspects to consider regarding interoperability between libraries and archives. D-Lib Mag 14 (9/10). Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  9. Kim H (2003) Myongji University digital library project: implementing a KORMARC/EAD integrated system. TEL 21(4):367–374Google Scholar
  10. Palacios Escalona JP (2006). Modelo de unificación semántica de ontologías, aplicado al dominio de los archivos digitales. (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid). Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  11. Pitti DV (2004) Creator description: encoded archival context. Cataloging Classif Q 38(3):201–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pitti DV (2006) Technology and the transformation of archival description. J Arch Org 3(2):9–22Google Scholar
  13. Sánchez-Alonso S, Sicilia MA, Rato G (2008) Sobre la interoperabilidad semántica en las descripciones archivísticas digitales. Revista Esp Doc Cient 31(1):11–38Google Scholar
  14. Schweiger R et al (2003) Linking clinical data using XML topic maps. Artif Intel Med 28:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shien-Chiang Y (2008) Discussion on web archives using topic maps. JoEMLS 46(1):55–80Google Scholar
  16. Sigler L (2009) The changing world of archives. PNLA Q 73(4):36–44Google Scholar
  17. Szary RV (2006) Encoded archival context (EAC) and archival description: rationale and background. J Arch Org 3(2):217–227Google Scholar
  18. Thurman A (2005) Metadata standards for archival control: an introduction to EAC and EAC. Cat Classif Q 40(3):183–212Google Scholar
  19. Tramullas J, Garrido P (2006) Constructing Web subject gateways using Dublin Core, the Resource Description Framework and Topic Maps. Inf Res 11(2). Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  20. Venkatesh V et al (2007) Topic maps: adopting user-centred indexing technologies in course management systems. J Interact Learning Res 18:429–450Google Scholar
  21. Yaco S (2008) It’s complicated: barriers to EAD implementation. Am Arch 71(Fall/Winter 2008): 456–475Google Scholar
  22. Yakel E, Kim J (2005) Adoption and diffusion of encoded archival description. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 56(13):1427–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yi M (2008) Information organization and retrieval using a topic maps-based ontology: results of a task-based evaluation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(12):1898–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridGetafeSpain

Personalised recommendations