|
|
 |
|
The Guide addresses two basic questions:
What types of information should be recorded?
How should that information be recorded?
In response to the first question this discussion identifies the
broad areas of information, or entities, in a catalogue entry.
These are of such fundamental importance as to constitute the
organizing principle of the Guidelines given in Part Two, providing
the framework within which more specific categories of
information are identified and defined. An important factor in
the identification of these categories is the need to determine a
minimum body, or core, of information that should be included
in any catalogue entry. The chapter then goes on to discuss the need
for consistency in the recording of information (including terminology
control and authority control), and some
ways in which this can be achieved.
Entities
Broadly speaking, research-oriented catalogue information about an
architectural document addresses both intrinsic and extrinsic
attributes. Both intrinsic and extrinsic information are required to
catalogue architectural documents. Intrinsic qualities are generally
those that constitute the physical makeup of the item, for example,
its technique and medium, its method of representation (e.g.,
perspective drawing), or the presence or absence of such elements as
inscriptions or scales. Extrinsic qualities refer to or represent
something outside the item. These extrinsic characteristics provide
many essential points of access, including:
- The person who made an architectural drawing
- The corporate body that commissioned a project
- The subject of a drawing (e.g., a staircase)
- The building represented in a drawing
- The geographic location of a building
For the purpose of the Guide, these characteristics have
been divided into four broad areas, or entities:
- Items and groups of items
- Subjects and built works
- People and corporate bodies
- Geographic locations
A fifth area of information is Bibliographic Sources, an ancillary
area for the referencing of sources on the other four; it can be used
also to create bibliographies.
Categories of Information
Each entity is composed of discrete pieces of information, termed
categories. A category may represent a concept (e.g., style)
or a proper name (e.g., the name of a repository). In the case of an
automated system, a category may equate to a single field. Some
concepts involve more than one category of information. For example,
the physical characteristics of a drawing may be broken down into a
number of categories, including technique, medium, dimensions,
etc.
If cataloguers in a given repository—or a number of
repositories that share information—record information under the
same headings but have differing views about what information should
be entered under them, the ways in which that information should be
entered, and the meanings of the terms used, then the value of the
resultant catalogue entries will be greatly reduced. If definitions
are not consistent, the apposition of unlike information as seemingly
identical may well confuse the user and lead to misunderstandings and
faulty retrieval. For this reason, the Guide places
considerable emphasis on defining and discussing the types of
information that need to be recorded, rather than simply listing what
that information should be.
Core Categories
Certain categories of information are central to any catalogue
entry, and the importance of establishing a clearly defined and
adhered-to set of basic categories cannot be stressed enough. The
integrity of a catalogue depends more on consistency at a basic level
than on the depth of detail of its best entries. Accordingly, the
Guide identifies those types of information that researchers
generally need and a corresponding minimal, or core, set of
information categories. These core categories help to answer
the following basic questions:
How is the group or item identified by the repository?
Most architectural documents are unique—even blueprints often
have notations and overdrawings on them—and there is no
standardized way to designate which group or item corresponds to the
catalogue entry. It is important, therefore, to record the attributes
that combine to identify any given group or item.
What individual, agency, or corporate body originated the item or
group of items? What are the characteristics of these
entities?
For both groups and single items, it is necessary to identify who is
responsible for the origination of the group (as a group) or of the
item. Researchers ask for material not only by the name of the maker,
but also more broadly by the maker's locus of activity (e.g., all
draftsmen who worked in Spain) and period (e.g., all
18th-century draftsmen).
When were the items made?
For architectural documentation, the period of time in which the
items were made can reveal valuable evidence about design and
construction phases, building restorations, and artistic
development.
What is depicted on the items?
The subject of an architectural document is often unbuilt or not
depicted as built. Information about a subject as it is depicted is
therefore a valuable resource for researchers.
It is of greatest importance—as well as easiest—to
achieve common standards first for the minimum record. The
designation of core, however, is not meant to imply that
repositories should record only the minimum amount of
information recommended here. There will be a growing desire to go
beyond core-level cataloguing as researchers pursue different
avenues. The Guide therefore suggests additional categories
for providing information useful to researchers. A complete list of
both core and optional categories of information appears in Outline
of the Categories of Information.
Providing Core Information
An important step toward achieving consistency is ensuring that
some information is present in every core category in an entry. The
need for this information becomes clear when one considers the
consequences of not providing it. For example, if the date of
execution of a number of items is given in some catalogue entries but
not in others, attempts to retrieve by date of execution will fail to
find relevant entries because an essential piece of information was
not recorded.
Understandably, a cataloguer may hesitate to enter information
about which he or she is not certain, especially when a core category
of information is designated as an access point and the information
required is "hard" or factual. When the cataloguer does not know a
date of execution, the tendency may be to omit that category
altogether, rather than to concoct an answer. But the function of
categories designated as access points is to lead the researcher to
the entry and from there to descriptive information concerning the
item. Therefore, even if the cataloguer can give only a very rough
estimate of a date, this is preferable to no date at all; even the
roughest of estimates provides a handle by which to find the entry.
Areas of uncertainty can be made apparent through descriptive
information that uses natural language.
There will always be circumstances in which a cataloguer cannot
ascertain some core information. In such cases, it is better to
indicate that the information is unknown than to leave the category
empty. This eliminates the possibility that the information was
available but inadvertently omitted.
Terminology Control
Individuals often have different understandings of terms such as
project, subject, architect, artist, and date of
execution, and relate them in different ways. By date of
execution a catalogue entry may refer to the date a drawing was
begun, or finished, or the entire time span; the date a design was
begun, or finished, or the entire span; or the date the built work
represented in the drawing was begun, finished, renovated, or
destroyed, or the entire span. These differences of understanding
were relatively unimportant when cataloguing information was
retrieved primarily by reading discursive prose, and the meaning
imparted to a term or concept could be inferred from its context.
If it is common to use the same words for different concepts or
entities, it is also common to use more than one word for the same
concept. People process such synonyms unconsciously. However, the
ability to recognize that, for example, two different names refer to
the same person requires knowledge of a subject area. Automated
systems can recognize synonyms only if the two names are expressly
cross-referenced. The Guide seeks to highlight areas where
differences of meaning can affect the quality of information
retrieved from catalogue entries and, where possible, to suggest
solutions that reduce the potential for ambiguity in the application
of both concepts and individual terms.
An appreciation of the problems of terminology control begins with a recognition
that users of indexes must be able to anticipate the terms
that have been used when searching for information. This
necessity of knowing precise terminology in order to retrieve
information can be alleviated, for example, by online thesauri,
which provide a certain amount of latitude in terminology.
The Guide makes recommendations for the use of thesauri
when appropriate, although their use does not in itself
ensure that researchers can predict which terms were used.
In fact, there are numerous approaches to the general problem
of terminology control. The guidelines given here suggest
the use of the Art
& Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) wherever appropriate.
Information that is recorded in categories designated as access
points must be expressed consistently. For instance, the name of a
city that is the locus of activity of several people should be
spelled identically in the record for each person.[1]
If not, their records will not file together in a geographic index.
There are various methods for achieving such consistency. These are
often referred to by the umbrella terms terminology control
and authority control, the principal aspects of which are as
follows:
- Format control: A set of
rules for ordering and punctuating information within
a category to ensure that it is always recorded the same
way, e.g., Howell Killick Partridge & Amis,
not Howell, Killick, Partridge and Amis, and not
HKPA.
- Vocabulary control: Control
of generic terminology, i.e., common nouns and adjectives,
e.g., isometric projection.
- Authority control: For the
purposes of the Guide, control of proper names,
i.e., names of people and corporate bodies, subjects and
built works, and geographic locations.
The principal purpose of format control is to ensure uniformity of
syntax and punctuation. Many users of automated systems are likely to
have experienced the frustrations of having failed to find
information simply because a word was not capitalized or because
there were too many spaces between words. Unfortunately, while human
intelligence automatically compensates for such lapses of
consistency, often the computer cannot. Format control is applicable
to all types of information, and is an aspect of both vocabulary and
authority control. Guidance on format control as applied to
individual categories is given where appropriate.
For the purposes of the Guide, vocabulary control refers to
the means of maintaining consistency in the recording of
generic concepts. Generic information consists of common nouns
and adjectives, as opposed to proper names. It is important to make
this distinction, because it is as necessary to be able to retrieve
by generic types or classes (e.g., department stores) as by
specific names (e.g., Macy's). Generic information and proper
names must therefore be recorded in separate fields. For example, a
drawing made for the Liverpool Cathedral Competition would be
indexed in a number of separate fields, including a field for the
generic term competition as well as a field for the proper
name Liverpool Cathedral.
Vocabulary control for generic terms is necessary in fields that
are designated as access points because otherwise cataloguers and
researchers tend to use synonyms for generic concepts. The agreed-on
vocabulary required for some fields may be relatively limited, but
for others will be very large. For example, the roles that a person
may play in relation to an architectural subject (e.g.,
architect, engineer, craftsman, client)
are few, but the terms used to describe buildings are manifold. One
means of imposing a degree of vocabulary control over the process of
compiling computerized records is to make lists of acceptable words
for particular categories and store these online in look-up or
validation tables. One such table might include all the terms
regarded as valid in a field that records the roles just mentioned.
These word lists assist in the entry, validation, and retrieval of
information. They not only help cataloguers find an appropriate term
but also prevent the entering of terms regarded as invalid by
checking automatically to see if a term entered by a cataloguer is
acceptable, and rejecting it if it is not.
The major problem with word lists is that not all valid generic
terms have the same meaning in all contexts. Another problem is that
most concepts can be expressed in a spectrum that ranges from broad,
general terms (e.g., landscape) to more specific, narrow terms
(e.g., parkland). There is an implied hierarchy in such a
broad-to-narrow range of concepts, since all of the narrow terms are
members of a broader term. This is referred to often as a
"parent-child" relationship. To determine how a concept relates
hierarchically to other, like concepts, one can ask whether all
instances of it belong to another, or vice versa. With the example
above, we can state that all parkland is landscape, but
not that all landscapes are parkland. Parkland
is therefore the narrower term—a "child" of
landscape.
The description of architectural documents relies on many
hierarchically related concepts. For example, the term
architectural drawing is itself a narrower term for
drawing. To be more precise, it is a narrower term for drawing
in the category of terms describing drawings according to the
purpose for which they were made. Similarly, isometric
drawing (of an architectural subject) is a narrow term for
architectural drawing. In this case, however, the drawing does
not belong in the category recording purpose, but in one concerning
drawings according to method of representation.
Failure to take account of the hierarchical nature of generic
terms will result in a loss of retrievability. One approach to this
problem is to use a thesaurus, such as the AAT. Generally
speaking, a thesaurus places each term in a hierarchy or hierarchies
and records any related terms and synonyms. A thesaurus may be used
by a cataloguer as a guide for the choice of terms and can, if
computerized, be used as an online method of validating data being
entered and for retrieving information held in the system. However,
terminology control is not effective unless users have a common
understanding of the meanings of the terms permitted. Reference to
scope notes, or full definitions for terms provided by a thesaurus,
reduces the likelihood of misuse or lack of consistency in
meaning.
By applying thesauri, cataloguers can tailor terms entered in
fields designated as access points to the levels of specificity
required in each. For example, in the case of a database storing
information on the environment that is used primarily by geographers,
a broad term like landscape may well be too broad to be of
value as a retrieval aid because too many entries would contain that
term. A query that yields too much information that is not of
interest to the user is of limited value, for the user must still
read through descriptions in order to find what he or she requires.
Moreover, as a database grows, there is a danger that queries by
broad concepts will become so taxing to a system that they may have
to be disallowed.[2] The Guide
makes recommendations for recording appropriate hierarchical levels
of terms under pertinent categories.
Authority control (names)
Authority control is a means of maintaining consistency in the
recording of proper names. Entities with proper names are at the
other end of the spectrum from generic concepts like
architecture. Proper names denote specific instances of a
generic concept; e.g., the Liverpool Cathedral Competition is
one instance in the general class of all competitions. The
proper name serves in part to distinguish the particular instance
from all other competitions. For a retrieval system to be flexible it
is necessary to be able to retrieve by both the generic level (all
competitions) and the specific instance (all items relating to
the Liverpool Cathedral Competition). It is also necessary to
allow for retrieval on levels that are between generic and specific,
e.g., all competitions in England.
When a list or file for names is separate from the file for
catalogue entries for items, the file may be called an
authority. On the most basic level, an authority file's
function is to track the use of proper names. (The broader function
of authority files in a database is explained in the next section.)
In the context of an architectural documents database, entities with
proper names include people, corporate bodies, subjects/built works,
and geographic locations, that is, the areas of information extrinsic
to items and groups. Just as generic terms have synonyms which should
be cross-referenced, so do proper names. The circumstances by which a
name can change or occur in different forms are perhaps best
appreciated by reading the relevant sections of Anglo-American
Cataloguing Rules (AACR2).[3]
When recording proper names in a catalogue intended for
international use, it is important to avoid dominance of English or
any language. A catalogue entry is likely to be in the language(s) of
the cataloguing institution; sometimes this is even mandated by law.
ADAG recommended, however, that all proper names should be expressed
in the language of the person, corporate body, or geographic place to
which reference is being made, in addition to the language(s) of the
cataloguing institution. This approach may not be practical beyond
the five western European languages used by the Comité
International de l'Histoire de l'Art (CIHA): French, German, English,
Italian, and Spanish. The Guide recognizes the difficulties of
making a catalogue system linguistically equitable but recommends
that a repository consider the goal of accessibility beyond its own
language(s) and make as many provisions as possible for achieving
it.[4]
Even in one language, an entity may have a number of proper names.
An individual building may form part of a complex (broader context),
and may have parts with their own proper names (narrower context).
For instance, the Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El
Escorial is a complex made up of numerous parts: Palacio Real,
Patio de los Evangelistas, Galeria de Convalencientes, Jardin de los
Frailes, etc. Similarly, a corporate body may form a part of a
larger body with a different name, but may in turn be the parent of
another. It is important that a database record the hierarchical
relationship between these names; otherwise, retrieval will be
unreliable.
Expanding Authorities
As noted earlier, a large proportion of the categories of
information included in catalogues of architectural documents concern
specific, identified activities, people, organizations, structures,
and geographic places. These contextual (extrinsic) entities can be
described and recorded quite separately from the documents to which
they are associated; doing so expands the function of authority files
beyond that of controlling proper names to that of enabling
researchers to combine information intrinsic to a document with
information about another entity. A query such as " all prints of the
Petit Trianon by German draftsmen" goes beyond the items involved,
for it draws upon biographical information, e.g., locus of
activity.
Authority files in this expanded sense complement the principal
types of information recorded by a repository. For example, a
repository of architectural drawings regards its item file as
central, but may maintain ancillary files concerning subjects
and people. On the other hand, a professional association of
architects may maintain a main file for people (i.e.,
biographical information), but ancillary files for subjects
and items. An architectural documents database may have
authority files holding information in such areas as subjects and
built works, people and corporate bodies, and geographic
locations.
Some advantages of expanded authority files are as follows:
1. Once information about an entity (a person,
corporate body, subject, built work, or geographic place) has been
researched, it can be shared with other departments and
repositories that have documents concerning the same entities.
This reduces the total amount of work, because otherwise each
department and repository would have to do the research
individually.
2. A repository may record the authority information in a
separate entry from the item, then link all the documents about
that person, place, etc., to that entire record. This, too, is a
labor-saving device, because the information does not have to be
repeated in each item record, and any change of the information
need only be done once, not duplicated for every item record.
3. By eliminating duplication, all repositories or
departments that use the authority file can reduce errors in the
information.
4. All names for an entity are collocated (filed together)
in one record. This ability enhances retrieval and allows for
control of the use of proper names.
5. Categories of information within the authority record,
such as a person's life span or a building's geographic location,
may be used as access points.
The gathering of authority file information can be separate from
the cataloguing of items. For example, an institution may wish to put
resources into compiling a database on architects, whether or not it
holds items to which all those recorded are related. The extent to
which an institution wishes to develop authority
files—particularly in terms of the amount of detailed contextual
information they record—will depend on the relative importance
of that information to the repository's specific functions and
mission. However, the core categories recommended in the Guide
include types of research-oriented information needed for authority
control. More detailed discussions of authority files can be found in
Subjects/Built Works, People/Corporate Bodies, Geographic Locations,
and Bibliographic Sources.
|
|
|
|
