American Archivist/Vol. 49, No. I/Winter 1986 Interpretation and Application of the AMC Format NANCY A. SAHLI Abstract: The USMARC Archival and Manuscripts Control (AMC) format is a standard format for the administrative and descriptive control of archives and manu- script materials, primarily in automated systems. This article describes the history of the AMC format's development, as well as the characteristics of its various parts. In- formation on AMC format implementation and use is provided, covering such topics as functional requirements analysis, information gathering, and system selec- tion/design. The article concludes with recommendations for future action related to the format's ongoing development and use. About the author: Nancy Sahli is on the staff of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, where she is archives specialist for technological evaluation. Her undergraduate degree is from Vassar College and her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history are from the University of Pennsylvania. Much of her work has focused on archival automation and information systems, and she served as a member of the Society of American Archivists's National Information Systems Task Force. Her most recent book, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format, was published in 1985 by the Society of American Archivists. The views expressed in this article are solely hers and do not represent the official position of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission or the National Archives and Records Administration. This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 48th annual meeting of the Society of American Archivists, 3 September 1984, Washington, D.C. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 10 American Archivist/Winter 1986 EVERYONE REMEMBERS THE BIBLICAL STORY about the Tower of Babel, the highrise of confusion where the carpenters could not talk with the masons because no one spoke the same language. A similar situa- tion occurs when archivists try to describe and communicate information about ar- chives and manuscripts without having a common vocabulary and set of ground rules. The use of computers, which re- quires conformity and standard tech- niques, only complicates the situation. Archivists and manuscript curators who undertake computer applications quickly become aware of the need for standardized formats and procedures. As Lydia Lucas noted in an American Ar- chivist article in 1981, "Automation, though it tolerates wide variance in data, does not tolerate idiosyncracy. . . . Stan- dard formats, where the required elements can be formalized, help en- courage precision and accuracy at crucial points."1 Traditionally, however, ar- chivists have been idiosyncratic, and the lack of uniform descriptive standards and practices has been a definite hindrance to automation and information exchange in archives and manuscript repositories. What archivists are coming to realize, however, is that to argue that standard formats are not needed for archives and manuscripts or are impossible to achieve is to relegate archivists to an intellectual and professional backwater. Because of a general lack of standards for archival description at the time, it was relatively easy for the Library of Con- gress in 1973 to issue a MARC Format for Manuscripts that had only a remote relation to archival needs and practices.2 Although the introduction to the format acknowledged the assistance of John Knowlton of the library's Manuscript Division and Arline Custer and Harriet Ostroff of the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, formal par- ticipation of the archival profession in the format's development apparently did not occur. As a result, this format for machine-readable information exchange was best suited for the description of in- dividual manuscript items—the kiss of death as far as archivists were con- cerned—and enjoyed little use.3 More significantly, however, archivists rejected the format because it was seen as being oriented to library rather than archival practices, from its origination in the Library of Congress to its use of library concepts and terminology. Even the Manuscript Division at the library re- fused to use it. Meanwhile, the library community embraced the other MARC formats (for books, serials, and other materials) with enthusiasm and used them in creating automated networks for interlibrary loan, shared cataloging, and other applications. It is hardly surprising that archivists turned away from the MARC formats and library automation activities in order to develop systems that were more in tune with their perceived needs. A variety of in-house systems were initiated at such in- stitutions as the National Archives, the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and the University of Illinois—systems which 'Lydia Lucas, "Efficient Finding Aids: Developing a System for Control of Archives and Manuscripts," American Archivist AA (Winter 1981): 24-25. 2Library of Congress, MARC Development Office, Manuscripts: A MARC Format; Specifications for Magnetic Tapes Containing Catalog Records for Single Manuscripts or Manuscript Collections (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1973). 'No review of the MARC Format for Manuscripts appeared in the American Archivist in 1973, 1974, or 1975; nor was the format mentioned in the journal's "Technical Notes" section. It was, however, listed by Meyer H. Fishbein in his bibliography, " A D P and Archives: Selected Publications on Automatic Data Processing," American Archivist 38 (January 1975): 31-42, and in "Writings on Archives, Historical Manuscripts, and Current Records: 1973," American Archivist!?, (July 1975): 339-374. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Interpretation and Application 11 used different hardware, software, and data configurations. During these early days there was little perception of the need to view archival description as part of a wider information environment or of the possible administrative uses of shared data. One philosophical exception to this pattern was SPINDEX, a series of data base management programs developed at the National Archives in the 1960s and 1970s to deal with archival automation needs. Although SPINDEX's developers originally envisioned the use of a com- mon data format by all of the system's users, individual institutions quickly learned that the programs' flexibility enabled them to create a wide variety of data base designs, formats, and im- plementations. A big step toward the standardized use of SPINDEX and crea- tion of a national information system for archives and manuscripts came in 1976 when the National Historical Publica- t i o n s a n d R e c o r d s C o m m i s s i o n (NHPRC) announced plans to develop a SPINDEX data base of information about historical records and manuscripts and the institutions in which they were located.4 Conceived as a hierarchical system including repository, collec- tion/record group, series, and lower levels of control, to emulate the eight- level hierarchy found in the SPINDEX programs, the data base eventually en- compassed the NHPRC's Directory of Archives and Manuscript Repositories and several state-based survey projects in Washington, New York, Kentucky, and other areas, which used the same field structure or pattern for formatting data.5 At the time the NHPRC was beginning to develop its system, some archivists questioned the commission's decision. Concerns ranged from the possibility of duplication of effort with the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections (NUCMC) to concern that a SPINDEX- based information system could not, because of its inherent technological limitations, provide the kind of flexible, online access that was becoming more and more widespread in the information world. In order to address these concerns and to develop ideas for what a national archives and manuscripts information system should be, the Society of American Archivists formed the National Information Systems Task Force in 1977.6 Early on NISTF, as the task force came to be called, perceived that no single system or entity could serve the needs of all archival users. Instead, it •The most detailed discussion of the NHPRC data base concept can be found in Report on the Con- ference on Automated Guide Projects, St. Louis, Missouri, July 19-20, 1977 (Atlanta: National Associa- tion of State Archives and Records Administrators, 1978). See also Larry J. Hackman, Nancy Sahli, and Dennis A. Burton, "The NHPRC and a Guide to Manuscript and Archival Materials in the United States," American Archivist 40 (April 1977): 201-205. 'National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Directory of Archives and Manuscript Repositories in the United States (Washington, D.C.: NHPRC, 1978). Publications of the state-based survey projects include Washington (State), Division of Archives and Records Management, Historical Records of Washington State: Guide to Records in State Archives and Its Regional Depositories (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Division of Archives and Records Management and Washington State Historical Records Advisory Board, 1981) and Washington (State), Division of Archives and Records Management, Historical Records of Washington State: Records and Papers Held at Repositories (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Historical Records Advisory Board, 1981); a continuing series of county guides pro- duced by the New York Historical Resources Center at Cornell University; and the forthcoming guide to materials surveyed by the Kentucky Guide Project of the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives. 'See Richard H. Lytle, "A National Information System for Archives and Manuscript Collections," American Archivist 43 (Summer 1980): 423-426, and "An Analysis of the Work of the National Informa- tion Systems Task Force," American Archivist 41 (Fall 1984): 357-365; and David Bearman, "Toward Na- tional Information Systems for Archives and Manuscript Repositories," American Archivist 45 (Winter 1982): 53-56. NISTF functioned until 1983. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 12 American Archivist/Winter 1986 decided that a more appropriate focus would be to establish a format for ar- chival information exchange that could be used with all types of hardware and software and could even be adapted for manual applications. Such a common format would enable information to be exchanged between institutions and need- ed to be designed to conform to accepted standards in the information world, such as those promulgated by the American National Standards Institute. After in- vestigating the resources needed to develop such a format, the task force decided that the most economical and best approach would be to take an ex- isting format, the MARC Format for Manuscripts, and try to adapt it to meet archival needs. The radicalism of such a measure should not be underestimated. Imagine, recommending a procedure that would involve archivists talking to librarians, learning about their practices, and even working with them toward the develop- ment of a common standard. Yet the ad- vantages of developing a new MARC for- mat were clear. Archives and manuscripts information could be integrated into ex- isting MARC-based bibliographic net- works, the costs of developing and main- taining an independent format could be largely avoided, and network users could ultimately obtain information about all types of materials relevant to their needs from a single source. Indeed, the Re- search Libraries Group's plan to develop an archives and manuscripts module for their MARC-based online system, the Research Libraries Information Network (RLIN), was a key force leading to adop- tion of the MARC format strategy by NISTF. Because the development of MARC formats was controlled by the library community, NISTF recognized the im- portance of not ceding all format deci- sions to librarians. Cooperation was the key, and the working group established by NISTF to iron out the details of infor- mation and format requirements includ- ed representatives from both the archives and library worlds. Likewise, it was agreed that maintenance of the revised format, christened the USMARC Format for Archival and Manuscripts Control (or AMC for short), would be the joint responsibility of the Library of Congress and two advisory bodies, the SAA's Committee on Archival Information Ex- change (CAIE) and the American Library Association's Committee on the Representation in Machine-Readable Form of Bibliographic Information (MARBI). Basic to this working relation- ship was the Library of Congress's agree- ment to make AMC format changes only with the consent of the SAA and ALA committees. What then is the AMC format and what are its implications for archival description? At its most elementary level the format is a container for informa- tion—a series of labeled pigeonholes—in- to which data or information about ar- chives and manuscripts may be placed, just as a recipe, another type of format, is a series of pigeonholes of data relating to the preparation of a particular food. Just as a recipe contains various parts, such as a title, a list of raw ingredients, and narrative details on preparation tech- niques, so the AMC format, like the other USMARC formats, has different parts, each of which contains a particular kind of data. These include the leader, the record directory, control fields, and variable data fields. Within the general framework of the format the user creates a separate record for each unit (such as a collection or record group) being de- scribed. For example, the data base being created by the Research Libraries In- formation Network contains many dif- ferent records. Each of them, however, contains similar data fields. It is only the D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Interpretation and Application 13 information in each record that is dif- ferent. One of the biggest mistakes that fledg- ling format users make is trying to under- stand the leader and record directory elements of the format. Both of these are machine-generated entries that contain general information about the record as a whole and also provide parameters for computer processing of the records. Con- ceptually they are very hard to under- stand and are apt to discourage novices from further exploration of the format. Most archivists, however, who are under- taking computer related implementations of the format will be using an existing processing system—an online network such as OCLC or RLIN; a turnkey system, such as Geac or LS2000, in which the vendor provides both equipment and programs; or general MARC application programs, which run in a mini- or micro- computer environment.7 Michigan State University, for example, with funding from the NHPRC, is developing a series of MARC-based programs that will run on an IBM PC-XT or compatible equip- ment. The project is scheduled for com- pletion in mid-1986. All of these systems should generate leader and directory data automatically, with minimum interven- tion by the user. Those who prefer the challenge of a more individualistic ap- proach may, of course, develop their own software and systems. In addition to the leader and record directory, each MARC record contains control fields and variable data fields. The control fields provide information about the record's control number, the subrecord map of the directory (another technical term), the date and time of the latest transaction involving the record, certain physical characteristics of the material being described, and other ab- breviated or coded information about the record useful for information retrieval. Following the control fields is the heart of the format, the seventy-seven variable data fields approved for inclusion in the AMC format (Table 1). Each variable data field consists of two characters called indicators, each of which provides summary information about the content of the rest of the field. Following the in- dicators, each field contains between one and twenty subfields. Each subfield con- tains a particular data element, such as a date, a name, or an index term. Many subfields and fields may be repeated within a single record, while others can- not. Each field and subfield has a unique field number, subfield letter or number, and name. Descriptions and examples have been created for all fields, as well as many subfields. Figure 1 shows the layout of a typical AMC variable data field, 506, which pro- vides information about restrictions on access. Although some fields, such as this one, give individual users considerable latitude in deciding how they want sub- field information to appear, other fields require the use of Library of Congress designated codes or standard forms of entry. If an archivist is interested in pursuing the use of the format, what steps should be taken? First, if the prospective user is not already involved in automation, he or she will need to decide whether the initial implementation will be manual or com- puterized. Did I say manual? I certainly did, for although MARC is an acronym 'OCLC, the Online Computer Library Center, began providing online services in 1971 and is the largest bibliographic service in the United States. RLIN is the computer network of the Research Libraries Group, a corporation jointly owned by a number of American research institutions and libraries. Turnkey systems are automation systems which include hardware, software, installation, training, and ongoing support from a single source. Geac is a turnkey system marketed by Geac Computers International, a Canadian firm. LS2000 is being developed and marketed by OCLC. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 14 American Archivist/Winter 1986 Tag 001 002 005 007/00 007/01 007/02 007/03 007/04 007/05-08 007/09 007/10 007/11 007/12 008/00-05 008/06 008/07-10 008/11-14 008/15-17 008/18-22 008/23 008/24-34 008/35-37 008/38 008/39 010 035 039 040 041 043 045 052 066 072 09X 100 110 111 130 240 242 243 245 260 300 340 351 500 502 505 506 510 AMC FORMAT VARIABLE DATA Field Title Control number Subrecord map of directory Date and time of latest transaction Category of material Specific material designation Original versus reproduction aspect Polarity (microforms) Dimensions (microforms) Reduction ratio Color (microforms) Emulsion on film (microforms) Generation Base of film (microforms) Date entered on file Type of date code Date 1 Date 2 Place of publication, production, or execution code Undefined Form of reproduction code Undefined Language code Modified record code Cataloging source code Library of Congress control number Local system control number Level of bibliographic control and coding detail Cataloging source Language code Geographic area code Chronological code or date/time Geographic classification code Character sets present Subject category code Local call numbers Main entry — personal name Main entry — corporate name Main entry — conference or meeting Main entry — uniform title heading Uniform title Translation of title by cataloging agency Uniform title, collective Title statement Publication, distribution, etc. (imprint) Physical description Medium Organization and arrangement General note Dissertation note Contents note (formatted) Restrictions on access Citation note (brief form)/references Tag 520 521 524 530 533 535 540 541 544 545 546 555 561 562 565 580 581 583 584 59X 600 610 611 630 650 651 655 656 657 69X 700 710 711 730 740 752 773 851 870 871 872 873 880 886 FIELDS Field Title Summary, abstract, annotation, scope, etc., note Users/intended audience note Preferred citation of described materials Additional physical form available note Reproduction note Location of originals/duplicates Terms governing use and reproduction Immediate source of acquisition Location of associated materials Biographical or historical note Language note Cumulative index/finding aids note Provenance Copy and version identification Case file characteristics note Linking entry complexity note Publications note Actions Accumulation and frequency of use Local notes Subject added entry — personal name Subject added entry — corporate name Subject added entry — conference or meeting Subject added entry — uniform title heading Subject added entry — topical heading Subject added entry — geographic name Genre/form heading Index term — occupation Index term — function Local subject added entries Added entry — personal name Added entry — corporate name Added entry — conference or meeting Added entry — uniform title heading Added entry — title traced differently Added entry — place of publication or production Host item entry Location Variant personal name Variant corporate name Variant conference or meeting name Variant uniform title heading Alternate graphic representation Foreign MARC information field Table 1 D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Interpretation and Application 15 for Machine .Readable Cataloging, the basic principles of designing a descriptive system are not dependent on the tech- nology that will be used for implementa- tion. The content of archival descriptive information is no different whether it is written down by hand, on a typewriter, or entered into a national online system. The important thing is to gather and record the information in a manner that is compatible and consistent. That means isolating individual information elements and arranging them in the same logical order, or field order, in which they ap- pear in the AMC format design. That way, if the decision is made to automate, it will be a simple matter to add field and subfield designators, indicators, and the other embellishments that are part of a machine-readable MARC record. A second key in planning for imple- mentation is to acquire the essential for- mat documents. These include two manuals prepared specifically for ar- chival users: MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format and MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compendium of Practice.* The first of these contains introductory guidelines for format use, the AMC format edited for archival users, and an updated version of the NISTF Data Elements Dictionary with cross references to fields and sub- fields in the format and to Steven L. Hensen's Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts. The second volume is a product of the 1984 Conference on the Use of the MARC Format for Archives and Manuscripts, held at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin with sup- port from the NHPRC. It provides ex- amples of format use and practice from some of the initial AMC users, including RLIN, OCLC, and individual institu- tions. The Library of Congress's MARC Formats for Bibliographic Data (MFBDJ, Update 10, the "official" release of the AMC format, contains the full text of the format as well as essential codes and other authority lists.9 Materials created by other organiza- tions and individuals can also be of assistance in designing an AMC im- plementation. These include the Research Libraries Group's AMC Field Guide, Walt Crawford's MARC for Library Use, and more general MARC literature from the library world. Crawford's book contains a rich bibliography.10 Third, the need for archivists to have a clear sense of their own descriptive needs is as important as familiarity with MARC itself. We have all heard of the proverbial repository whose finding aid system changes each time there is a new curator of manuscripts. With the AMC format, there is now an opportunity for archivists to take a detailed look not only at their descriptive systems (or lack thereof), but also at the methods used for providing administrative control over materials. It is likely that such evaluation will reveal repetition and redundancy in archival ad- ministrative practices and record keep- ing, with multiple forms and a lot of duplicated effort. Archivists should be "Nancy Sahli, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1985) and Max J. Evans and Lisa B. Weber, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compen- dium of Practice (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1985). 'The MARC Formats for Bibliographic Data (MFBDJ may be ordered either on an ad hoc or subscrip- tion basis from the Customer Services Section, Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20541. Steven L. Hensen's Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Libraries (Washington, D.C: Library of Congress, 1983) may be ordered from the same source. A catalog listing other MARC-related publications is also available. '"Research Libraries Group, AMC Field Guide (preliminary edition, Stanford, Cal.: Research Libraries Group, 1983; a revised edition is forthcoming). Walt Crawford, MARC for Library Use: Understanding the USMARC Formats (White Plains and London: Knowledge Industry Publications, Inc., 1984). D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 16 American Archivist/Winter 1986 sto Q a p h ic B ib li o g i fo r CO o rm a M A R C F F or m at : <° >•Q . E CD X I DC CO A C C E S S O N S O r- T R IC T I co UJ DC m LL Q LU CO 3 5 •k * 5 5 > m cc A C C E S S •J O S N O T R IC T I T O R S 06 R E S IN D IC A LL LL O Q L U L U COCO 3 3 a. a. 5 5 5 5 5 5 > > mm nd ef in ed nd ef in ed 3 3 1 1 T- CM O O CO In d ic a In di ca XI XI B FI E LL " 3 CO LL Q LU CO 3 5 *DL 5 • 555 <<< 5 5 > > *: m * 5 > 2 CO CO ov er ni ng a cc e tio n O> CJ T er m s Ju ri sd CO . Q CO co tn 1 a cc e ss p ro vi : CO P hy si c 55 << 5 > oc :e d us er s 5 > DC 2 s sp e ci fie d CO A u th o M a te ri CJ "O CO ri O N OC o CO LUQ LL Q LU CO 3 5 Q. 5 5 5 > m CD r— ss t o tt on a cc es io n on in fo rm a t se d :o rd Q . E CO c o T3 m bo ut r e st ri ct io hi s fi e ld i s us < CO c co" 3r d in fo rm a tio u b iis h e d w or k CJ o • o Id i s us Q . al s. F or C o m a te ri st ri bu ti- T hi s fi e e sc ri b e d m ite d d if TD — LL Q LU CO 3 5 0- 5 5 5 CO cL.9 ly si ca l, oi Q . "io be d m at e sc ri •§ j £ CD ie s ic ce ss " id e n tif • * - ' a> w is h in g t o se CD CO O)C0 er m s g o ve rn in h- co -H- LU Q ;L D C O ed o n in d iv id u CO o a . CO c •s tr ic tic S U B F IE e d u ra l r e o 5 5 > c o ve rn i e te rm s g .c is ri f o _c au tl is u nd er w h a t OB 1 5 > ap pe al ed . & u ri sd ic ti o n " st ce d, a nd m ay xi LU Q iL D C O S U B F IE o "c o • o " CO o D. E CD cc es s ar CO n ts r e- rr a n g e m e CO c CO CO m ci fi( CD D . CO "co c o CO 1 5 5 > E to t ig e fr o m t im e Q . CO h ys ic a i ac ce ss (w h ic h m ay c Q. D E t c. " CO CO CD CJ o CO "cO ;L D C O ph ys ic S U B F IE ui re d fo r Cr CJ C if or s pe of u se rs CO CO CO pl y. jo n ot a p co -H- CJ 2 CO d e si g n a te s e it e st ri ct io n s in s "co ut ho riz ed us ei or de d tr ib u te io n is r ec to is n ot di s E 3 3-°' c CO CO n al ct io ns -o n- ac ce d is u se d in te r st ri i an d m us ic , r es tn or b oo k! fie l or m a p s, t h is f LL I N ot e) . on S er vi ce . D is tr ib u FI C E : F G en er a M A R C C P R A C " - 1 el d 50 0 ( • - ie M ap s LL Q LU CO 3 5 Q. 5 5 > m • D CD ta C la ss i XI CO X A M P LE [5 06 ] UJ Figure 1 D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Interpretation and Application 17 CO "5a o Q. CO fo r B it IA R C F o rm a ts 2 CO < DC O LL S S (C o n ti n u e d ) A C C E z o CO z o o DC 1— CO LU DC 8i n LL Q LU CO | | 03 3e o n ly . c ia l us =O ° —i O — «* — CO LU 0_ ^- < in X " LU CO CD ie U n it e d S ta t J— fo r d is tr ib u ti o n i r lil a b le TO CO o zCO n 0 6 ] LO ^ ^ 1 :o rs u n ti l 19 9S CO en C lo se d t o in ve st i •D -H- •b CD ;t ri cf UJ CD DC CO n 0 6 ] in n CO CO CD O O < b" 5) fr a a te ri a l e x tr e m e ly it o n ly . te d: M in tm e i o o CD ra CC CO 0 6 ] in I fr o m N o o n e m a y n i n fo rm a ti o n f U n d e r- S e cr e ta ry e se r e co rd s o r o b ile s o in e th si O CO n 0 6 ] in is lo te o ti c e . b y w ri tt e n T re a su ry o r h tc K e p t in r en r ir s a d va n ce n< 1 • —> p ie s o f th e m e x c e X b S e c re ta ry o f t •i ze d r e p re s e n ta ti \ ce ss r e q u ir e s 2 4 1 o r c o i is s io n a u th o i g e ; a c E E > , 5 iZ Q.TJ CO 'c (D le ra l g o v e rn m CD | i ye a rs e x c e p t to 1 w ft h a n e e d t o k n i| O CD o• a 8 LO LL a n ti l Ja n . 19 79 . se d u O CD i l CO n n 8 ^̂ 9 8 4 ). insa. D) c o O "o L ib ra ry h in g to n , D .C .: CO CO io g ra p h ic D a ta ( V \ 3 CO o u. o Q: rc e: 3 o CO Figure 1 (Continued) D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 18 American Archivist/Winter 1986 clear about their information needs before they begin format implementa- tion. Some of the current publications on designing information systems that ar- chivists should find particularly helpful are All in Order: Information Systems for the Arts by Mary Van Someren Cok, Richard M. Kesner's Automation for Ar- chivists and Records Managers: Planning and Implementation Strategies, and Joseph R. Matthews's Choosing an Automated Library System: A Planning Guide.'' Finally, after determining the system requirements for information elements and computer hardware, it is time to start thinking about what the format is to do. Since it is generally not cost-effective or practical for archivists to develop their own computer programs, it will be necessary to evaluate one of the existing networks, turnkey systems, or software packages. Before reaching a decision, questions should be asked about cost, maintenance, user assistance, the layout of screen displays used for data entry and retrieval, and the kinds of hard copy pro- ducts, such as reports, that can be generated by the system. Joining a net- work such as RLIN, for example, may be only a partial solution, because a stand- alone computer may still be needed for routine word processing and certain ad- ministrative functions. Other factors that should be considered include the ability of staff to adapt psychologically to the use of a standard format and automated techniques, the need to develop pro- cedures for quality control of format data, education and training needs prior to and during implementation, and even such mundane matters as whether a repository's wiring system can handle computer equipment without a major overhaul. It is also wise to talk with people at in- stitutions that are implementing the AMC format. Some of these are listed in MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compendium of Practice. Quite a few repositories and organizations, with varying prior levels of automation ex- perience, are already using the format and are creating the basis for future im- plementation by the rest of the archival community. Members of the Research Libraries Group, such as Yale, Cornell, and Stan- ford universities and the Hoover Institu- tion, have been working as a consortium to design and test RLIN's implementa- tion of the AMC format. Other RLIN participants include the National Ar- chives, several state archives, and a host of research libraries. The Library of Con- gress's Manuscript Division and NUCMC have undertaken the planning steps essential for format implementa- tion. OCLC is implementing the format both through its regular online network and through its LS2000 turnkey system. At the Smithsonian Institution, MIT, and other locations, the integrated MARC- based Geac turnkey system is being used. Format-based software and in-house systems for archival applications have been or are being developed by a number of organizations, including Automated Information Reference, Inc., (AIRS), Michigan State University, the Chicago Historical Society, Western Carolina "Mary Van Someren Cok, All in Order: Information Systems for the Arts, Including the National Stan- dard for Arts Information Exchange (Washington, D.C.: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 1981), especially 63-100; Richard M. Kesner, Automation for Archivists and Records Managers: Planning and Implementation Strategies (Chicago: American Library Association, 1984); and Joseph R. Matthews, Choosing an Automated Library System: A Planning Guide (Chicago: American Library Association, 1980). See also Matthews's A Reader on Choosing an Automated Library System (Chicago: American Library Association, 1983). These are only a few of the many helpful works available in this field. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 Interpretation and Application 19 University, Dickinson College, and Gallaudet College. It is obvious that the USMARC Ar- chival and Manuscripts Control Format is here to stay. It is also obvious that some time is going to elapse before the format will be used by the majority of the profession. This is no cause for concern, however, for the format is complex and carries with it implications for the ways archivists describe and administratively control their holdings, assorted needs for education and outreach relating to its use, and a wide range of possibilities for the use of automated techniques. It also compels archivists to work with a wide range of professionals in the library, in- formation, automation, and user com- munities. None of this can or should be accomplished overnight. What then might archivists expect to see as format adoption and implementa- tion progress? There will be continued development of standards for archival description and information formatting. There will also be those in the profession who resist this trend, who see no merit in c o n s t r u c t i n g archival i n f o r m a t i o n systems integrated with those being developed for other kinds of information sources, and who feel that traditional ar- chival descriptive and administrative practices should be religiously main- tained. New ideas often face opposition. The primary concern, however, should be to ensure that the format and its im- plementations meet the needs of ar- chivists and users alike. In order to achieve this archivists need to develop strategies for education and outreach for AMC format implementa- tion and use directed to both archivists and the users of archives and manuscript materials. Understanding the format, automation, systems analysis, and related concepts are challenges for the profes- sion. Workshops and other short-term offerings may partially fill this need, but only if their participants immediately begin to apply the knowledge that they acquire. Self-instruction materials need to be prepared to guide archivists through the basics of format implementation. Similar instructional tools need to be developed for users of archival materials focusing, for example, on information retrieval strategies for use with online systems. The Society of American Ar- chivists's current project, funded by the National Endowment for the Humani- ties, to develop an archival automation information and education program is designed specifically to meet these needs. Archivists also need to consider the full range of possibilities for automated ap- plications. Although there is no question that the AMC format is the standard for higher level archival description and in- formation exchange, it may not be a suitable vehicle for providing certain types of administrative and process con- trols over the life cycle of records. Initial users of the format and of the networks and turnkey systems that have adopted it as a standard are evaluating these ques- tions. The suitability of national net- works for providing day-to-day ad- ministrative control of records is being evaluated, as are prospects for network- ing among microcomputers.12 Modifica- tions to the AMC format have already 'Tor example, see "Historical Society of Wisconsin Joins RLG," SAA Newsletter (January 1985): 7; Tom Mills and Kathleen Roe, Development of LS2000 for Automated Control of Archives (Albany: New York State Archives, 1984); and David Bearman, "Who About What or From Whence, Why and How: In- tellectual Access Approaches to Archives and their Implications for National Archival Information Systems" (Paper presented at the Conference on Archives, Automation and Access, University of Victoria, 1-2 March 1985). D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021 20 American Archivist/Winter 1986 been recommended, and additional changes are likely to occur in the future.13 The future of the AMC format depends on the work of many individuals and groups—the Society of American Archivists and its Committee on Archival Information Exchange, the Library of Congress, members of the archival pro- fession, format users, software developers, and a host of others. It depends on the willingness of the archival profession to adopt standardized methods and procedures, on the avail- ability of computer programs to manipulate formatted data, and on the ability of archivists, librarians, and other information professionals to continue the cooperation that has characterized their initial efforts. l!Format users should note that several errors occurring in the Library of Congress's "official" format issuance (MFBD, Update No. 10) have been corrected in the SAA's edition of the format, MARC for Ar- chives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format, as a result of discussion between the author and Margaret Pat- terson of the Network Development and MARC Standards Office of the Library of Congress. MFBD, Up- date No. 11, available from the Library of Congress, also includes these corrections. Substantive changes have been recommended as a result of the October 1984 meeting of AMC format users in Madison, Wisconsin. Those wishing to propose additional changes should address their concerns to the SAA's Com- mittee on Archival Information Exchange. D ow nloaded from http://m eridian.allenpress.com /doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.49.1.y10g533247774463 by C arnegie M ellon U niversity user on 06 A pril 2021