The Combined Use of EAD and METS for Archival Material

An Integrated Toolkit
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 755)


Information professionals have at their disposal a complex ecosystem of standards and tools designed with specific focus by different user groups. In the case of the Cultural Heritage projects, there are different metadata schemas aimed to support the efficient creation, storage and distribution of content and digital assets. But the use of these metadata schemas, and the software tools that make their use and deployment possible, are sometimes restricted to well-limited areas. As an example, the EAD schema is widely used by archivists for describing fonds and records, TEI is mainly applied for encoding textual corpus, and METS is bounded to the digitization of ancient books. A major permeability and reuse of metadata schemas and tools in different contexts is needed, as information professionals and user communities can leverage their capability to exchange and disseminate assets, gain independence from proprietary software solutions and platforms and make possible an unlimited, global access to our communities’ Cultural Heritage. This paper describes the development of a technical solution that integrates the use of EAD with METS for the digitization and description of archival records. With the proposed solution archivists obtain the benefits of both standards using a common, integrated process and tools.


Records management EAD Mets Metadata integration 


  1. 1.
    Dappert, A., Enders, M.: Using METS, PREMIS and MODS for archiving eJournals. D-Lib Mag. 14(9/10), 1082–9873 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caplan, P., Guenther, R.S.: Practical preservation: the PREMIS experience. Libr. Trends 54(1), 111–124 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaitanou, P., Gergatsoulis, M., Spanoudakis, D., Bountouri, L., Papatheodorou, C.: Mapping the hierarchy of EAD to VRA Core 4.0 through CIDOC CRM. In: Garoufallou, E., Subirats Coll, I., Stellato, A., Greenberg, J. (eds.) MTSR 2016. CCIS, vol. 672, pp. 193–204. Springer, Cham (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eito-Brun, R.: Description of engineering artifacts and archival data: EAD meets VRA. Proc.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 147, 341–344 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allison-Bunnell, J.: Review of encoded archival description tag library–version EAD3. J. W. Arch. 7(1) (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eito-Brun, R.: A metadata infrastructure for a repository of civil engineering records: EAC-CPF as a cornerstone for content publishing. J. Arch. Organ. 12(1–2), 62–76 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peroni, S., Tomasi, F., Vitali, F.: The aggregation of heterogeneous metadata in web-based cultural heritage collections: a case study. Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 8(4), 412–432 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maemura, E., Moles, N., Becker, C.: Organizational assessment frameworks for digital preservation: a literature review and mapping. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridGetafeSpain

Personalised recommendations