LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EAD Archives


EAD Archives

EAD Archives


EAD@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  September 2001

EAD September 2001

Subject:

Re: XSL and EAD

From:

Daniel Pitti <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Encoded Archival Description List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:43:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (165 lines)

I heartily agree with Michael that the discussion has been very
interesting, and also very encouraging. I would like to provide a little
more background on the design of EAD, in particular its flexibility (or
laxness) , and the quality and consistency of archival description.

Before doing so, however, I would like to correct an amusing error (to me
at least) in my response to Hugo yesterday: "Voice sensitized output"
should of course be "voice synthetized output."

When EAD was developed, everyone involved realized that it was merely the
first step. While computer standards certainly present difficult technical
and intellectual challenges, they also present political and economic
challenges. At the beginning of the design process, the developers adopted
a modest methodology. In part the methodology recognized the limits of
those involved. None understood the technology and its potential uses well
enough to envision and articulate a complete reformulation of archival
description. At the same time, they also recognized that the community
would have rightfully rejected such a reformulation. Instead they decided
to focus on representing existing archival description in a
machine-readable form. They believed that if the archival community could
be persuaded to use EAD, the use would provide a means to acquire
experience with the technology, to explore and experiment with its
potential uses, to find out what worked and did not work, and that the
experience and understanding acquired would lead to ongoing discussions,
negotiations, and reformulations of archival description, and EAD.

EAD's flexibility is thus by design. It had to be flexible in order to
accommodate a wide variety of archival description, the vast majority of it
based loosely on archival descriptive principles, but not on content
standards. This was a practical political and economic decision. DTDs are
frequently described as being of two kinds: constraining and enabling.
Constraining DTDs are very rigorous. They tightly control both the order
and number of tags. Such DTDs are common in situations where there is a
need for very controlled data and there is no diverse existing (or legacy)
data with which to contend. Generally such DTDs are only workable in
environments where there is sufficient authority to mandate use. In other
words, not the archival community. Enabling DTDs are used for accommodating
diverse legacy data, where extremely tight control over order and number of
tags is not necessary or possible, because authority is lacking to enforce
a strict regimen. While EAD is an enabling DTD, the developers added as
many constraints as seemed necessary to make it usable. They recognized
that more constraints would be better, both for those providing system
support, as well as end users, but that constraints would need to be
arrived at over time, and by consensus. Making the DTD more constrained,
however, will not in itself lead to consistent and high quality description.

There are a number of other, more important challenges to overcome in the
standardization of archival description than "tightening up" the DTD. We
need detailed content standards. While ISAD(G) is a good content standard
structure or outline, a good content standard needs to provide much more
detail. The North American CUSTARD project will address this for one
community, but similar efforts need to take place in other communities. The
guidelines developed by various consortia and RLG are also a contribution
to the ongoing normalization of EAD use. Reconciling these in North America
would also increase quality and consistency. We also need better education
and training. While the SAA and RBS EAD workshops are a good start, no one
will become an expert in the application of EAD in two days or five days.
If one thinks about the resources that are devoted to training good library
catalogers, the archival community is no where near that. Libraries rely
heavily on existing catalogers training new catalogers. A new cataloger
generally works under review for many months. I am not sure how we provide
this kind of intensive training, but we certainly need to give it some
thought.  Given the very limited human and material resources of most
repositories, education and training challenges are likely to be best met
in the context of consortia that pool and leverage resources.

All things considered, since EAD's release in 1998, great progress has been
made on many fronts. But we certainly have a lot more work to do. We need
to keep working on furthering consensus, but also recognize that we will
always need to accommodate national, regional, institutional, and cultural
differences, as well diverse archival records and contexts.

Daniel






At 04:45 PM 9/17/01 -0500, you wrote:
>It has been a most interesting set of messages that have come across the
>list today.  Let me add a few footnotes.
>
>Is the DTD lax (or just permissive)?   Should we have EAD lite?  Or less
>flexibility in EAD itself?   More prescription?  The origins of the DTD rest
>in a conscious effort to accommodate a fairly wide range of existing finding
>aids practice at the time.  It was in fact a tactical issue to some extent.
>How does one promulgate a standard?  How does one encourage good and
>consistent practice?  What do you think the market penetration of EAD now
>would be today if a group had determined in 1995 what finding aids ought to
>have looked like (either as to content or presentation) and created a DTD
>that supported only that view?   One could argue that we should have started
>out with first principles and spend ten years of committee work to lay the
>firm principles by which we might proceed. I'm not sure that such an
>approach would have succeeded, particularly if it were to have an
>international component.  In any event,  it did not happen.
>
>The issue is what do we do now.  Perhaps we are now a time when the pendulum
>can swing the other way.  Everybody agrees that we need an agreement on
>structure- what informational pieces should be included in descriptive
>products.  ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) are a start but they are really only broad
>outlines, the basic core.   If we were to live in a logical world, we would
>define these elements and then move on to a content standard that described
>how these data elements would be constructed- a content standard, a data
>dictionary, business rules- depending on the vocabulary of the discipline
>from which you come.   While I never like to disagree with my colleague Hugo
>Stibbe, I would argue that ISAD(G) is not a content standard or if it is, is
>one with very weak semantics.  RAD, now that's a content standard.  APPM
>too.  You could actually describe something using their rules.  Not really
>so with ISAD(G).  In North America, the CUSTARD project is attempting to
>blend the best of RAD and APPM to create a content standard that is
>independent of output.  But what about in the UK and Sweden and France?  We
>have to remember that EAD has an international face and must accommodate
>various national descriptive traditions just as MARC can accommodate data
>created according to APPM, or the Oral History Cataloging Manual, or other
>content standards, as well as AACR2.
>
>With the EAD Cookbook, so much of the conversation, including that which
>started this list thread, has been on the stylesheets.  That's the applied
>side.  I have always felt that the encoding protocol was really the more
>important part of the Cookbook.   The idea was to encourage consistent
>content and markup by offering tools that would produce pretty results.
>Another of these backdoor tricks to encourage standardized best practices.
>I am dismayed that one of the unintended side effects seems to be "tag
>abuse" to make data that does not conform to the encoding protocol display
>nicely.  This is either a perversion of my intent or simple necessity for
>dealing with the myriad of reasonable possibilities that the Cookbook could
>not envision.
>
>We now have several encoding protocols out there- from California, LC, and
>elsewhere- that we ought to consider.  I talked with several individuals at
>SAA about bringing together a discussion of these  with the possible goal of
>formulating one consolidated recommendation.  I personally have no interest
>in perpetuating something independent for the Cookbook.   The question is
>who would do this and under what auspices.  Could it be timed to incorporate
>the work of CUSTARD?
>
>If we had such an agreement as to data structures and their encoding, we
>wouldn't need EAD lite or some local subset of the DTD.  (By the way, the
>later is, on a practical level, a dangerous direction in my mind.  Who would
>maintain these local variants when the master DTD changes?  These are not
>trivial concerns or simple technical matters. You thought XSLT was tough-
>try writing a DTD without making a hash of it.)   We could implement the
>standardization in the form of work forms, templates, encoding protocols,
>structural standards, etc.
>
>Once we have some reasonably consistent content and encoding, then we can
>talk about consistent presentation, which I also support.  Many of you may
>have heard my rant on this subject during a session at SAA.  And I'm not
>talking about the touches that provide institutional band identification of
>the sort that Jim Cross mentions.  Patrons understand library catalogs
>because there is a consistency of content and presentation that we all
>learned around fourth grade.  Archivists need to learn a lesson from that
>example.  Are we ready?
>
>
>Michael J. Fox
>Assistant Director for Library and Archives
>Minnesota Historical Society
>345 Kellogg Blvd West
>St. Paul, MN 55102-2409
>651-296-2150  (phone)
>651-296-9961  (fax)
>[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
December 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager