Thank you for the interesting responses. It seems attempting
to repeat the container numbers for every component below the
subseries level might be an intractable problem. If one is
only interested in the display advantages of the repeated container
approach, listing the container number at the lowest level only
would seem to be the best option.
However that does contradict the explanations and examples given
in the Application Guidelines:
EAD AG 7.2.5 (p.200):
"As noted in section 3.5.2.5, archivists may wish to consider encoding
the container and/or folder information **for each descriptive component
below the subseries level** ..."
EAD AG Appendix E (p.261):
<c03 level="file">
<did>
<container type="box">2</container>
<container type="folder">1-5</container>
<unittitle><geogname>Orange County</geogname></unittitle>
</did>
<c04 level="file">
<did>
<container type="box">2</container>
<container type="folder">1</container>
<unittitle><corpname>Irvine Ranch</corpname>,
<unitdate type="single">ca. 1895</unitdate></unittitle>
</did>
</c04>
<c04 level="file">
<did>
<container type="box">2</container>
<container type="folder">2</container>
<unittitle><geogname>Laguna Beach</geogname> and
<geogname>San Juan Capistrano</geogname> Mission,
<unitdate>undated</unitdate></unittitle>
</did>
</c04>
By the way, the problem I am facing is at the file level, not
the series or subseries level. Although the specific text of my
example--"Correspondence" and "Speeches"--implied these were
series titles, I only chose them for clarity, brevity, and they
were the best I could come up with off the top of my head.
Alvin Pollock
Lead Programmer
Online Archive of California
http://www.oac.cdlib.org
|