ALM@Magnes

Introducing the Integrated Archive-Library-Museum Collection

of the Judah L. Magnes Museum in Berkeley

Francesco Spagnolo, PhD

Head of Research
The Magnes
∗
April-September 2008 / Nissan-Elul 5768


This document was prepared in close collaboration with my colleagues, dr. Alla Efimova, Chief
Curator, Elayne Grossbard, Judaica Curator, dr. Lara Michels, Associate Archivist and Librarian,
and Perian Sully, Collection Information Manager, and would not exist in this form without
their help and contributions. Mistakes, omissions, and possible sources of misunderstanding
are, of course, all due to myself.
ALM@Magnes 2 9/17/10

BACKGROUND: DEFINING “COLLECTIONS”

The term, “collection” (from the Latin, “tying together,” “gathering”), holds a variety
of semantic connotations, typically ranging from monetary actions to the
accumulation of knowledge. In the latter sense, the term relates not only to the
objects of knowledge themselves (objects, documents, books, etc.), but also to a set
specific practices of describing knowledge, typically applied to institutions like
archives, libraries and museums. Within each institution, the term “collection” further
acquires content-specific connotations that help defining its holdings on the bases of
their origin, acquisition, and interpretation.
At the Magnes, we apply the concepts of collection to a variety of holdings:

• Holdings located in a specific facility (the archive, library and museum

collections);

• Holdings reflecting the legacy of specific donors (e.g. the “Strauss” or “Satchko”
Collections),

• The three collecting areas outlined in our Collecting Plan (“modern and
contemporary art,” “ceremonial and decorative art,” and “historical and archival
collections”);

• A wide array of intellectual and thematic organizational models reflecting

typologies, geographic origins, historical events, etc. (e.g., the Textile, India, or
Inquisition Collections).
This semantic fluidity, which greatly enhances our ongoing interpretation of a unique
gathering of cultural testimonies about the global history and culture of the Jews,
has often been translated into ambiguous work practices: our archives store books
and objects that would normally belong in the museum storage, archival and library
materials are accessioned in the museum collection only when included in exhibition
programs, registration records for the archive and the museum are kept separate,
etc.
Due to the overlapping of some these notions, we have often found ourselves
wondering how to best organize our human and intellectual resources, both for
internal purposes and in view of public presentation.
This document attempts to organize our notions of “collection” in conjunction with
the adoption of the database management software, IDEA@ALM. This new system
promises to allow us to catalog and manage our holdings by integrating the best
practices of archives, libraries and museums (ALM), while maintaining a global
perspective.
The database project, which sets a new standard in the description of the objects of
culture, is part of a broader plan to achieve a new level of internal organizational
clarity, or vision, for the Magnes. The project serves a host of purposes centered on
the presentation of a publicly accessible repository of reliable collection information,
which offers historical and documental approaches to textual, visual and material
cultures.
In this document, which is conceived as a work in progress and as an integration to
the Collecting Plan, we briefly focus on three topics: ALM integration; the place(s) of
“collections” in the database; and the description of the cultural goals that await the
Magnes staff in the months to come.
ALM@Magnes 3 9/17/10

1. ALM INTEGRATION

The IDEA@ALM database allows us to describe the holdings of the Magnes as

belonging to three distinct areas: the Archive, the Library and the Museum, each
characterized by a separate databank, which is defined by content-specific templates
that enable the creation of accurate catalog entries.
Accuracy of information in the database depends to a great extent on ensuring that
the templates conform to practices that are discipline-specific. Therefore, while the
integration of Archive, Library and Museum records within the database requires a
professional staff that is open and flexible in the implementation of a highly
interdisciplinary approach, maintaining each ALM databank requires the following of
proper descriptive practices, which are discipline-specific.
Integrating the information about the Archive, Library and Museum items proceeds in
two ways:

• Extension of discipline-specific notions and practices traditionally associated with

one platform to the others; i.e., the Archive model to describe collections is
extended to Library and Museum items; Library circulation practices are used to
monitor research activities for the entire ALM collection; and the Museum notions
of authorship/creatorship are extended to Archive and Library records.

• Integration of discipline specific notions and practices into new ALM models;
i.e., notions of chronology and history that integrate dates and periods derived
from Archive, Library and Museum practices; integrated local and global subjects
and vocabularies; use of synonyms and preferred terms to create multi-lingual
and multi-cultural collection information; etc.
ALM@Magnes 4 9/17/10

The articulation of the relationship among the ALM databanks is crucial for at least
three reasons:
1. Defining which items in our collection belong in each area depends on a clear
vision for our Archive, Library and Museum holdings, facilities, and best
practices. This vision reflects that of our institution, and rests at its core.
2. Articulating our vision for the ALM holdings bears a direct impact on our
responsibilities as staff, our areas of expertise, and more generally on the
workflow that allows an item acquired into our collection to become a publicly
accessible, interpretable object of knowledge.
3. The process of making knowledge accessible further enhances our institutional
mission.
In general terms, by defining our three collection databanks in the database, we are
determining the vision of our Archive, Library and Museum as follows:
o The Archive is the repository of unique documents, which include personal
papers, documents, correspondence, and photographs of historical significance,
which encourage a broad documental approach to culture.
o The Library contains a variety of published books and manuscript formats,
including rare or reference volumes, illustrated books, periodicals, audiovisuals,
etc., which encourage a broad textual approach to culture.
o The Museum holds a wide variety of objects that embody “material and artistic
expressions,” which encourage a broad visual and material approach to culture.
These distinctions imply the affirmation of a clear vision, which is translated into the
re-configuration of the holdings, facilities, practices and management of the Magnes.
The main goal of re-assigning holdings to the Archive, Library and Museum is thus to
clarify how the different approaches to culture they represent are expressed in the
way the objects of culture are stored, preserved, accessed and described.
Currently, the Western Jewish History Center’s archive includes Library and Museum
items; the Blumenthal Library includes a host of archival collections; and similarly,
several Library items are kept and described as Museum objects.
A clarified vision for the three areas will be translated into the re-assignment of all
our holdings, their registration records, their location and their catalog description to
the integrated management of the Archive, Library and Museum areas. This process,
which is further articulated in the Magnes workflow, must also include a host of
collection “gray areas,” or the many cases in which the division according to ALM
areas may seem insufficient in categorizing and describing knowledge.
ALM@Magnes 5 9/17/10

Testing the ALM limits: Gray areas in the Collections

There are, of course, individual items and groups of items that can be assigned, on the
basis of equally pertinent considerations, to the Archive, the Library or the Museum.
A preliminary list of these “gray areas” includes:
• Photographs
• Maps
• Audiovisual materials
• Manuscripts
• Illuminated manuscripts
• Postcards
• Ephemera
• Ketubbot
Items in these group may in fact be relevant both as historical documents, as texts and for
their visual or material aspects.
Each of these holdings, as well as additional ones suggesting multiple destinations in the
database, requires a definite assignment to one of the ALM areas.

In determining the three ALM areas of the collection, we also acknowledge the
fluidity of the varying concepts of culture. Our ultimate goal is to celebrate the
objects of culture, by caring for them according to best practices, and at the same
time to ensure their public accessibility, thus opening their interpretation to the
community at large and allowing for the widest possible spectrum of intellectual
interpretations to take place.

The integrated ALM database of the Magnes promotes two “cultural narratives”:

• Primary sources: the ALM database of the Magnes offers the best, clearest access
to the objects of knowledge in our collections, and attempts to present them as
“the things themselves,” allowing for their open interpretation.

• Interdisciplinary approaches: the staff of the Magnes is capable, beyond each and
everyone’s specific academic and professional training, to study and catalog (and
thus to interpret) our collections across the ALM cultural spectrum, by constantly
testing, improving and sharing archival, library and museological standards and
practices.
ALM@Magnes 6 9/17/10

2. COLLECTIONS

The flexibility of the concept of “collection” is often the cause of ambiguity in our
internal practices. Therefore, it is important to address these concepts, so that they
can be adequately address in the context of the ALM databanks in the database, and
of curatorial oversight.
Currently, our concepts of “collection” can be grouped into three semantic areas:
2.1 Collections determined by the hosting facility
The current existence of WJHC, RBR and Museum “collections,” which is due to the
architectural configuration of the current location of the Magnes, can be entirely re-
configured according to the ALM model outlined above: regardless of the actual
facility in which they are stored, all holdings of the Magnes are conceived within the
ALM parameters.
2.2 Created/Donated collections
These collections are found in the Archive, Library and Museum (e.g. the “Strauss
Collection,” the “Satchko Collection,” each single archival collection of the WJHC,
etc.), and reflect a donor/creator-title relationship in the database.
2.3 Interpretive collections
These collections include a variety of holdings, grouped according to the following
broad categories:
• The collecting areas described in the Magnes Collecting Plan, which are at times
also stored together (Modern and Contemporary Art, Ceremonial and Decorative
Art, and Historical and Archival Collections);
• Items grouped by “type” and typically stored together (Haggadah, Ketubbah
collections, etc.);
• Items grouped by “topic” across the ALM divide, and not necessarily stored
together (Western Jewish History, the Holocaust, Jews in China, etc.).
As in the case of created/donated collections, interpretative collections also reflect a
combination of factors in the database: while some of these factors can be defined as
“subjects” in the database (and indeed correspond to universally accepted subject
headings, i.e. Library of Congress), others are created exclusively for internal,
Magnes-specific purposes, and can be defined as “local subjects,” or “tags.”
In order to integrate these two levels of interpretation (universal and Magnes-
specific) into the database, we can define all interpretive collections in two database
fields that are separate from the subject fields and that offer an open interpretation
of all Magnes holdings according to a “Web 2.0” model:
• The first field includes all collection tags created by the Magnes;
• The second field inherits all the values from the first one, but can also be opened
to the public for a social tagging process.
The first category of collections (those determined by their current hosting facility) is
destined to disappear with the implementation of the integrated ALM database. On
the contrary, the two other categories are enhanced by a database approach:
created and donated collections and interpretive collections will thus be tracked
across the ALM divide, and will potentially include archival, library and museum
holdings according to their provenance and to the interpretive paths created by the
ALM@Magnes 7 9/17/10

Magnes staff and by the public.

ALM@Magnes 8 9/17/10

∗
3. WORKFLOW

An important goal of this document is to define workflow according to the vision of

the Magnes Collection, based upon the integration of Archive, Library and Museum
records in the IDEA@ALM database.

The chart for all ALM holdings that concludes this document outlines the steps
involved in the workflow from the time a New Record is added to the database until
it is approved by all Collections staff.

The workflow includes the interaction among four main areas of work:

1. Record Types
There are four types of new records available in the workflow:
a. Proposed Acquisition: for items proposed for donation to or purchase by the
Magnes;
b. Found in Collection: for items already at the Magnes that were never accessioned
in the collection;
c. Accessioned Items: for items already accessioned in the Magnes collection, but
not found in the database;
d. Loans: for all incoming Loans.

2. Processes
a. Acquisition: of items proposed for donation to or purchase by the Magnes;
b. Accession: of proposed acquisitions approved by the Curators and by the
Collections Committee of the Magnes;
c. De-Accession: of items accessioned in the Magnes Collection, as approved by the
Curators, the Collections Committee and the Board of Directors of the Magnes;
d. Disposal: of items never accessioned in the Collection of the Magnes.

3. Interdisciplinary approach
The workflow allows for a dynamic interplay among three key functions performed by
the Staff of the Magnes. Together, these functions share the responsibility for the
creation of reliable database records.
a. Curators: are responsible for initiating acquisition and de-accession processes,
the assignment of item-specific templates, and for the creation and maintenance
of all intellectual information in each database record;
b. Registrars: are responsible for implementing accessioning, de-accessioning,
disposal and loan processes, for the assignment of accession numbers, and for
the creation and maintenance of all physical information about each database
record;
c. Collections Information Manager: is responsible for verifying, editing and
approving all collections information, including its global coherence.


This section does not include the workflow for Museum Exhibitions.
ALM@Magnes 9 9/17/10

4. Templates and Databanks Assignment

a. Templates are always item- and discipline-specific, and are assigned to items by
Curators: the workflow allows to perform this function as early as possible
(including at the New Record entry level);
b. The Databanks reflect the steps of the workflow:
i. Incoming: for all Proposed Acquisition until they are either approved or
declined for accession;
ii. Temporary: for all Found in Collection or Accessioned Items until their
appropriate ALM databank is assigned by Curators;
iii. Loans: for all incoming Loans;
iv. Declined: for all items Declined or De-Accessioned from the Collection;
v. ALM: for items included in the Archive, Library or Museum collections.
ALM@Magnes 10 9/17/10