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:

Clayton Redding <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:16:42 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (213 lines)

In case anyone is interested, a new web site and message board has been created to discuss some of the issues Liz raised.  

Primarily, the site was created to provide a web presence for a project that is in the works to develop open source, GPLd EAD tools.  Hopefully, the site will also serve to foster further discussion about data content standards, user testing, and what can/should be done to facilitate the creation and the use of EAD finding aids (for both users and information professionals).  

As a disclaimer, the site is not meant to usurp such discussion from the EAD listserv.  To the greatest extent possible, qualitative discussion on issues such as data content and structure standards should continue to be raised on the EAD list.  The message board is meant to attract those with technical skills willing to provide input on how tools can best be developed in light of the current state of the DTD.

Thanks,
Clay  


***********************************
Clay Redding
Automation/Systems Archivist
American Institute of Physics
One Physics Ellipse
College Park, MD 20740
(301)209-3172
[log in to unmask]

>>> [log in to unmask] 09/17 11:23 AM >>>
As I watch the traffic on the listserv regarding XSL and the EAD
cookbook, I am increasingly concerned that we are losing sight of what
EAD could provide to the broader archival community as well as
individual repositories.

Before I start ranting about anything I would like to say that Michael
provided a marvelous starting point with the EAD cookbook, giving
assistance to get over a technological hurdle. I doubt he would disagree
if I say that his work is a beginning and not the end.

Ideally, EAD should be a means to provide structural and semantic
markup of archival description. It has always concerned me that it is
a loosely structured set of markup, trying to accomodate everyone's
idea of the way description should be *presented*. And even as there
are descriptions of what belongs within which tags, the intrepretation
across archival repositories varies. As a technologist, whose role it
has been to manipulate markup, EAD's highly lax structure has made it
more difficult to mine what could be a very rich descriptive
structure. In fact, I would argue that its laxness has actually
confounded people's ability to modify it to their own descriptive needs
by inhibiting the very commonalities that it was developed to promote.
Whatever you care to say about MARC/AACR2, you know what
you are getting when you retrieve the 245 field.

I don't believe that the archival community will ever be able to fully
capitalize on the power of SGML/XML unless it can come to some more common
and broadly held understandings of the nature of archival description. No
matter how much markup is inserted into a descriptive document, the
potential to fully exploit the markup will be limited without that common
understanding. In addition, in some of the discussions of description to
which I have been privy, I have heard a lack of distinction between what
is commonly held to be the important elements of description and their
final *presentation*. This has led to unfruitful arguments about
description. It often seems from the perspective of this programmer that
some of the arguments that led to a lax DTD have really been about what
the presentation product (ie formatting) looks like rather than
fundamental descriptive practice. You can make anything look like a
"table" using XSLT - it may be more useful to capture the "meaning" of the
information rather than its format. Then it can be shared across
repositories.

One of the most difficult hurdles in understanding the power of using
XML as a document markup tool is that we can largely separate content
from presentation/formatting. It was certainly a hurdle for
me. Absorbing the idea that I could take information that was ordered
one way in a document and rearrange it for a variety of displays, that
I needn't worry about what was bold or italicized (that I should
instead worry what the information was "about"), took a while.


With the advent of numerous tools such as XSL(T) to manipulate XML,
some of the laxness of the DTD that was built in to accomodate widely
varyiny *formatting* practices is now irrelevant. From a single source
document one can generate multiple versions of a finding aid. Indeed,
one can rearrange the information contained within an EAD document in
any order including putting the eadheader information at the very
bottom of the document if one so desires. Allowing a loose structure
actually confounds our ability to share documents across
repositories. And without certain structural and markup commonalities
it is more difficult to build commonly shared processing tools,
including things such as stylesheets because of the infinite
variations of the original documents. Were the descriptive and markup
practices more constrained, building these tools with good user
interfaces would be greatly simplified - therby obviating the need for
every archivist to learn the ins and outs of XSLT.

With the development of manipulative tools, we could accomodate vastly
different presentation styles (if we desire that) while sharing a
common, consistent descriptive and encoding practice. Common encoding
and description would also allow us to build search tools that can
take full advantage of the rich information contained within finding
aids across collections.

On the other hand, this leads me to another observation. With increasing
concern I have seen people writing their finding aids to accomodate
Michael's stylesheets because they don't have the ability to modify
them. I doubt that was his intent. And in fact, in at least one query
that I have seen, it has led to what is called, in other SGML/XML
communities, "tag abuse". This is the inappropriate use of
tags(elements) in order to meet formatting or stylistic needs rather
than encoding the meaning/semantics/structure of the document. If
people start encoding their container lists so that they will look
nice when using the cookbook's stylesheets, they have missed one o of
the most important opportunities of encoding the finding aids in EAD
in the first place - that is to reflect the intellectual structure and
hierarchy of the collection. If one's only purpose is to make a "good
looking" finding aid for the web, one might as well skip the arduous
process of encoding it in EAD and encode it in HTML.

But clearly this misses the opportunity of EAD. XML can allow us to
share description across collections. But it can also allow us, in
individual repositories, to create single source documents, which,
through manipulations such as an XSLT transformation to HTML (and
XSL/FO to PDF), can provide multiple views of the the same
information.

Indeed, were we to agree on some common descriptive/encoding practices we
could build EAD specific tools, shared across repositories that would
enable us to automatically generate MARC records, reading room
versions of finding aids and a variety of other versions. These tools
would simplify the management of description rather than make it more
onerous. I currently see archives reproducing their their descriptive
information in a variety of forms.

Indeed, I would argue that what the archival community should focus on
is developing a common markup practice based on a common rich
descriptive practice.  If repositories hold a common understanding of
the content of the elements and could agree on a common markup
practice the machine manipulation of the documents would be greatly
simplified -indeed almost trivial. Tools that can be adapted, rather
than blindly implemented would be easier to build on a common set of
markup practices. Each repository could display that information in
its own unique way but rely on the common tools for things such as
MARC transformations, searching across collections of finding aids,
and to provide adaptable templates for display.


I take to heart Bill's concern that we really don't understand what
information is useful to our users. However, I would argue the
opposite - that XSLT and other XML manipulation tools provide an
incredible opportunity to discover precisely what we do not know about
users. A good user study might take a richly encoded description of
collections and display the same information in a variety of ways. An
analysis of what patrons find most useful would lead to a better
understanding of descriptive practice and presentation of
information. So, in fact, XSL provides a wonderful opportunity in this
arena.

Finally, as someone who has worked with SGML/XML for several years on
the programming end of things and someone who has trained many folks
to encode finding aids, I have long been interested in building a
suite of tools that would be EAD specific. They would make things such
as creating and editing EAD instances and modifying XSLT stylesheets
and XSL/FO more transparent and simpler for archivists who need to
focus on describing collections rather than encoding their
decriptions. I am not convinced that every archivist needs to
understand all the complexities of encoding documents in hte longer
term. Dynamic web forms, GUI interfaces could be created that would
enable the simplification of the process. Any effort to do this at
this point will be respository specific because consistent encoding
practices are needed in order to simply build such tools. There is not
doubt that to effectively share tools across repositories would
require that some idiosyncratic descriptive practices be retired. But
that does not mean that we have to give up on idiosyncratic display
and presentation!

I, and others who have been thinking about these issues, have
hesitated. We can build tools that meet our institutions' practices
but they will be of little use to the larger community, if our own
practices are idiocyncratic. And they require significant effort. The
payoff would be much greater to everyone if we were assured that our
tools would not be built on shifting sands. Building such tools would
be significantly easier if the infinite possibilities presented in EAD
were constrained. A series of easily adaptable tools would mean that
fewer would have to resort to the "tag abuse" to fit the cookbook
stylesheets. They would have their own "GUI" tools to easily modify
the display.  I am not convince that a stricter use of the DTD would
would significantly reduce an individual repositiory's ability to use
EAD to represent the vast majority of its requirements.

I personally am excited about the ability to use things like XSL(T)
combined with other tools to:

       - automatically generate MARC records in MARC communications
       format for automated insertion into online catalogs
       - create PDF versions of documents for reading rooms
       - gain a greater understanding of our users information needs by
       providing alternate views of the information as a part of userd
studies
       - provide rich targetted cross colleciton searching for our end
       users
       - enhance the tag set to include collection management
       information to enable implementation of a real single
       source/multiple use document management system for archival
       respositories..

XML can be an extremely powerful tool. If all we ever expect to do
with it is mount finding aids in HTML on the web, we are truly missing
some marvelous opportunities.

Finally, I would like to add that learning XSL may at first seem
complex but if you are interested in capitalizing on potential of XML
then it is worth learning. In fact, I would argue that it can help all
archivists to truly understand the distinctions between content and format
about which I have been ranting. That can only help us to develop a
common understanding of the potentials and limitations of EAD in this
arena.

Liz Shaw
Lecturer
School of Information Sciences
University of Pittsburgh

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

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