Orthmayr Flóra: The Lowest Levels of Archival Hierarchy: Adapting the Container List to ScopeArchiv. In: Nina Gostenčnik (szerk.): Tehnični in vsebinski problemi klasičnega in elektronskega arhiviranja. Popisovanje arhivskega gradiva. Zbornik mednarodne konference. Maribor, 2016. 505–514.

F. Orthmayr: The Lowest Levels of Archival Hierarchy

the various container lists. This preparatory work was the first to be undertaken now, making sure that all lists meet the following criteria:

a) Every

row in the table should describe a physically separate unit (either whole containers or independent archival units) that can be ordered in itself.

b) No

other row may remain in the tables beyond those that describe such units (previously there were some comments or titles between containers).

c) All

rows should contain the following data: Ordinal number, Type of the container (chosen from a given list), Title (previously “Content unit”) and Time of creation (previously “Articulation unit”).

d) Two

optional columns can be used for any further information: Title addition (previously “Reference 1”) and Contents (previously “Reference 2”).

e) The

Time of creation should be given as one date, or an interval between two dates, in the form YYYY, YYYY.AAM or YYYY.MM.DD.

These criteria were determined in a way that allowed many of the previously used Registrum tables to be accepted without any changes. Many other correctly completed container lists required only minor changes (e.g. standardization of date forms or, perhaps, exchanging “Reference 1” and “Reference 2” columns).

Picture 2:

Unchanged

data imported again into better chosen fields

Of course, this is only the formal minimum to make the import possible, which results in a slightly corrected version of the old table visible to researchers in archive plan search and exportable for archivists from the list view of the scopeArchiv. For many container lists this is enough. Nevertheless, further improvements are possible—some of them have already appeared as a recommendation in our proposal for correcting of the migration, others were defined on the basis of requests by archivists calling attention to special features of the archival materials in their charge.

3.4.2 Corrections of contents

Even though the process had not been planned to leave time for the thorough revision of all lists, it was necessary to check whether they met the minimum criteria, and this task could be used as an opportunity to correct obvious mistakes in the table form before importing the list into scopeArchiv. In the “Reference 1” or “Reference 2” columns, there were sometimes specific codes (figures or letters) without any explanation: we recommended making these now more understandable 510