This, also, is one of my questions. Here at the Archives of American Art,
we have identified levels at the series (and sub series and sub sub series
levels if needed) levels. However, we've left the lowest cOx levels
unidentified, thinking that, in some cases, it may be a file unit, but in
others an item unit, etc.
Chief, Collections Processing
Archives of American Art
[log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 03/01/06 11:14AM >>>
Well, since you asked, let me express the questions I always raise on this
matter. What practical or theoretical benefit do you get below, say the
subseries level? And, on an implementation level, what is everyone calling
all those 11 levels below series?
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 8:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: specifying @level for c0x elements
Whoops, so it is. My mistake, it is indeed "M" not "Req." Thanks!
Still a question mark, though: while we have been setting @LEVEL for series
and subseries, we have not been specifying it below that. Are most
institutions specifying a level for every c0x no matter what, down to the
file and item level? What are the pros/cons of not doing so?
Special Collections Research Center
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/28/06 6:02 PM >>>
Michele Rothenberger wrote:
> I've started running some of our EAD finding aids through the EAD report
card and I have a few questions that I thought I'd throw out for
> 1. The RC says that every c0# element must have the LEVEL attribute set.
It flags this as "Req" which means "Required by the DTD." However, this
does NOT seem to be required by the DTD, as witnessed by the fact that when
I parse my document against the DTD it is not flagged as an error. Thoughts
The level is required by the EAD Guidelines not the DTD. The report card
checks against the EAD guideline requirements.