The library of Trinity College Dublin was featured in Material World this week on BBC Radio 4. The programme discussed the use of Laser Raman spectroscopy, which is a non-destructive way of analysing the contents of the pigments in the illustrations of the 9th-century Book of Kells. It had originally been thought that the blues in the paintings were made from lapis lazuli, causing elaborate theories of very early trade links between Ireland and Afghanistan to be developed. The new technique showed that the blue was in fact created from woad, which is slightly less exotic and exciting, but much more easily explained. Keeper of manuscripts Bernard Meehan and keeper of conservation Susie Bioletti both featured in the programme, which is available online until next Thursday.
Author: Amanda Hill
Death again
I was going to post about the mention of the Cumbria Archive Service on Radio 4’s The Today Programme yesterday morning, but then two pieces of news about the National Archives and Library in Iraq caught my attention. One was a posting by Jeffrey B. Spur on the History News Network stating that the institution has been closed, the other was Patricia Sleeman’s message to the JISCmail archives-nra list, inviting archivists to read the diary entries of the institution’s Director, Saad Eskander, which have been mounted on the Society of Archivists’ website.
These items put PR triumphs by UK archivists into perspective, but you can hear Anne Rowe (Cumbria’s County Archivist) talking about the more mysterious seventeenth century deaths in Cumbria in The Today Programme until next Thursday.
Free XML editor
Many Hub contributors have invested in proprietary XML editing software such as XMetaL or Oxygen, but if you haven’t yet done so you might be interested in a free program called XML Copy Editor. It comes in Linux and Windows versions and makes it easy to validate EAD files. It’s also easy to associate style sheets such as the Hub’s so that you can get an impression of how your file will appear in a browser (which makes it a lot easier to proof-read). One feature I particularly liked was the ability to choose which browser to use for this: this is a failing in XMLSpy, which defaults to Internet Explorer (which then always crashes on my machine). I’ve never worked out how to change it to use Firefox (or any other browser), but it was easy to do that with XML Copy Editor.
Of course you don’t get all the functionality of the proprietary systems, but you are prompted as to which tags are valid at any point in the file, and there’s a handy special-character insertion menu, so if you don’t mind working with EAD tags visible, this looks like a good alternative to the paid-for options.
Picked up from Digitizationblog via the ArchivesBlogs aggregator.
Random death
Geoff Pick of the London Metropolitan Archives made an appearance on BBC Radio 4’s statistical programme ‘More or Less’ this evening, talking about the way the V1 rockets hit London in 1944. The way the bombs landed, often in clusters, meant that many people thought that they were being deliberately aimed at certain targets. The London County Council Architect’s Department’s maps of the locations of the strikes were used by R. D. Clark, a statistician, to prove that they were in fact perfectly random. During the next seven days you can listen to the programme through the BBC’s website.
P.S. For what it’s worth, I tried very hard to find a reference number for these maps, but with no joy. Please chip in if you know better…
Researchers and Discovery Services
A study commissioned by the Research Information Network has just been made available on the RIN’s website. The study interviewed 395 researchers and 55 librarians/information professionals to assess their use and perceptions of resource discovery services.
I hoped that the report would have something interesting to say about access to information about archives, but found it rather disappointing in that regard.
Key finding 1.3.1 General satisfaction with discovery services
The picture that has emerged from the survey is one of general satisfaction with the research discovery services available across the disciplines. Researchers in the sciences are most satisfied with the resource discovery services on offer, whereas interviewees in arts and humanities have more concerns about gaps in service coverage. The interviews with librarians broadly confirm this: librarians in the sciences and social sciences are generally satisfied with the range of discovery tools available while those in arts and humanities identify some gaps. (Section 4.2.9)
One of these gaps is access to archives: sections 2.1.1, 4.2.9, 6.1 and 6.2 all mention “the need for more online archives and manuscripts”. Section 4.1 records that a whopping 61.5% of researchers look for “Original text sources, e.g. newspapers, historical records”. This percentage seems quite high, given that only 16% of the researchers interviewed were Arts and Humanities researchers, and 19% Social Scientists. Or perhaps the inclusion of newspapers has caused confusion for the interviewees on this point.
The authors of the study have categorised the work of researchers in the following way:
3.7.1.1 Finding a reference
Tracing full details of a specific source (e.g. article, book, thesis, chapter in a book, presentation at a conference etc) when some information about the specific source is known, such as details of the author, or title, or journal number, or conference date.3.7.1.2 Literature review
The identification and critical appraisal of key sources published on a specific subject by other researchers.3.7.1.3 Researching a new area
The process of finding and analysing relevant sources covering a discipline, subject area, topic, or theme not previously researched by the researcher.3.7.1.4 Keeping up to date
Method chosen by the researcher to keep up-to-date on new research, new initiatives and other trends in a specific area.3.7.1.5 Finding datasets
Locating published or unpublished datasets. Datasets are groups of data from experiments or observations, or from surveys and other data collection methods. Published datasets are led by official datasets from government and multinational bodies, but other sources include trade associations and professional bodies, research organisations, academic research institutes, survey companies etc.3.7.1.6 Finding non-text sources
Locating images (photographs, DVDs, art work), audio, artefacts.3.7.1.7 Finding sources of research funding
Locating details of external sources of research funding such as national funding bodies, research councils, grant-making bodies, private-sector sources of funding etc.3.7.1.8 Finding organisations/finding individuals
Locating details of specific organisations and individuals, such as addresses, web sites, and contact details, plus general details of activities, research interests etc.
Of these, I would venture to guess that 3.7.1.3 is the category that would include original historical research, but the analysis of how researchers approach this area of work (which is surely one of their most significant activities) is pretty minimal:
In comparison with the activities of finding a reference and literature review, responses to this group of questions showed less use of specialist services, but again a very wide range of ?other? tools… Google is by far the most popular starting point when researching a new area, but also important are research colleagues, bibliographic databases, Web of Science/Web of Knowledge, and books/monographs. Not far behind the top 5 choices are Google Scholar, library catalogues and portals, library visits, online journals, and PubMed.
And that’s it! A fairly wide range of online archival resources are listed in Appendix 2 (including the ArchivesHub), but with the rather mysterious explanation that guides to archives are “very similar to dataset portals”. My overall impression was that the study authors’ understanding of researchers’ activities and needs was rather limited. But I might just be being biased because of lack of coverage of my particular area of interest. I’d be fascinated to hear opinions from any ‘real’ researchers who have read the study, or from providers of any other types of resources.
“For archivists with strong geeky tendencies”
Yesterday saw the first meeting of the Data Standards Group of the Society of Archivists under its new name. It was formerly known as the EAD/Data Exchange Group. The new name reflects a new, broader remit for the group, which is now providing a focus for digital preservation as well as data exchange.
This was evident in the talks that were given by Susan Thomas and Dave Thompson at the meeting, which was held at the British Library. Susan talked about the work of the Paradigm project, which is investigating the issues surrounding the acquisition and processing of personal digital materials. Susan described some of the software that has proved useful to the project, much of which has been developed for use by police investigators, whose requirements for an audit trail of untampered-with-data are similar to those of archivists.
The findings of the project are being written up into a Workbook, which is building up into an exceptional, practical, resource for anyone faced with the task of dealing with the accession of electronic records.
Dave’s talk on the UKWAC project described some of the technical and political challenges involved with the preservation of web sites and focused on the skills needed for staff involved with this sort of work. His conclusion was the title to this entry. I think this description encompasses the majority of members of the Data Standards Group.
Sir Eduardo Paolozzi’s statue of Newton in the British Library’s Piazza
Gunpowder treason
The Parliamentary Archives have put together a great online exhibition for all ages in The Gunpowder Plot: Parliament & Treason 1605.
It featured today on BBC Radio 2 as Website of the Day, which rarely mentions our sector. The programme in question attracts an audience of 6.5 million people, so that’s quite a PR achievement.
Mobile shelving and Mozart
Here’s a suitable-for-a-Friday film called ‘Interval Library‘ from Kim Huston.
From LISNews.
Top ten Archives Hub users
The table below shows the top ten UK institutional users of the Archives Hub service for the 2005/06 academic year (courtesy of the JISC’s Monitoring Unit).
| Institution Name | % of ac.uk use | Rank 2005/6 | Rank 2004/5 |
| University of Manchester | 15.38 | 1 | 4 |
| Oxford University | 8.96 | 2 | 2 |
| Manchester Computing | 7.34 | 3 | 3 |
| University of Cambridge | 7.29 | 4 | 1 |
| University of Edinburgh | 7.23 | 5 | 5 |
| University of Glasgow | 5.57 | 6 | 19 |
| University of Liverpool | 2.28 | 7 | 6 |
| University of Aberdeen | 2.21 | 8 | 15 |
| University of Wales, Bangor | 2.11 | 9 | 14 |
| University of Nottingham | 1.94 | 10 | 13 |
Blog for history
The History Matters campaign is organising a mass “One Day in History” blog in the UK on 17 October 2006. The entries submitted will be kept as part of the British Library’s web archive. It’s an internet-enabled version of the ideas behind the Mass-Observation movement.
From the site:
…a society out of touch with its past cannot have confidence in its future. History helps us to know where we come from and to explain the world as it is.
But one post in the site’s forum does point out that there is a distinct lack of mention of archives on the site, and apparent lack of involvement of archive-related organisations:
Sadly, it seems that they have been largely overlooked even by campaigners dedicated to promoting history and heritage.