David:
This is a very good question. The reason that we choose to repeat the box
number at every row of content is that large collections equate to lengthy
finding aids. Repeated display of the box number makes it very clear to the
researcher what box and folder they will need to ask for - since some
individual box listings contain over 60+ folders or so and may take up
several screens. This saves the researcher from having to back track to
locate the box number. It's a one-stop shop!
David Ruddy wrote:
> Alvin, or others,
>
> What is the argument for including container information at the series or
> subseries level if those levels contain nested components, which include
> container elements?
>
> That is, why not just this:
>
> Box Folder Contents
> Correspondence
> Personal
> 1 1 1960
> 1 2 1961
> 1 3 1962
>
> I suppose I'm asking whether it really is considered good form in ead to
> include the container numbers for *every* component, or just the lowest
> levels. Why duplicate the data?
>
> I realize this is not quite the question you raised, but it would impact
> how the problem is solved.
>
> --David Ruddy
>
> At 09:50 AM 4/27/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >I have gotten the impression that is considered good form
> >in ead to repeat the container numbers for each component.
> >E.g., where in the old days we might have created a
> >container list like this:
> >
> >Box Folder Contents
> > Correspondence
> > Personal
> >1 1 1960
> > 2 1961
> > 3 1962
> >
> >Today it's good practice to do it like this:
> >
> >Box Folder Contents
> >1 1-10 Correspondence
> >1 1-3 Personal
> >1 1 1960
> >1 2 1961
> >1 3 1962
> >
> >My question is how people should record the container numbers
> >for box-folder lists when some of the components span multiple
> >boxes. E.g.,
> >
> >Box Folder Contents
> > Correspondence
> > Personal
> >1 1 1960
> > 2 1961
> > 3 1962
> >2 Professional
> > 1 1960
> > 2 1961
> > Speeches
> >2 3 Rotary Club
> > 4 Kiwanis
> >3 1 American Legion
> >
> >The only thing I can come up with is the following, which seems
> >too ambiguous to me:
> >
> >Box Folder Contents
> >1-2 1-3, 1-2 Correspondence
> >1 1-3 Personal
> >1 1 1960
> >1 2 1961
> >1 3 1962
> >2 1-2 Professional
> >2 1 1960
> >2 2 1961
> >2-3 3-4, 1 Speeches
> >2 3 Rotary Club
> >2 4 Kiwanis
> >3 1 American Legion
> >
> >As far as explicit encoding, I would prefer not to use the parent
> >attribute of <container> as this type of encoding is extremely
> >tedious and time-consuming. However, if parent really is the best
> >way to go, how would you suggest it be displayed in the clearest
> >fashion?
> >
> >Alvin Pollock
> >Lead Programmer
> >Online Archive of California
> >http://www.oac.cdlib.org
|