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  November 2003

EAD November 2003

Subject:

Re: EAD is not for everyone was[Re: EAD and Music]

From:

Terry Catapano <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:24:48 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (300 lines)

I'd like to second much of what Liz and Clay have written, but also to go
off on a slight tangent about EAD's "non-specificity and lack of rigor
that confounds effective processing for resource discovery". I once
mentioned to Liz speaking of TEI, but it applies to EAD as well, that our
community sorely needs to come to the understanding that a large,
inclusive, and flexible DTD *enables* interchange, it does not *guarantee*
it. If interchange, or "effective processing for resource discovery" are
serious goals, then serious effort must be undertaken to apply EAD
properly. Mere EAD validity does not buy you much from a machine
processing standpoint, indeed. Yet, it does narrow the range of
possibilities and establishes a space for further conversation and action.
No mean feat.

That said, I confess my uncertainty as to how inadequate EAD really is as
a descriptive metadata standard. unitid, unittitle, unitdate, physdesc,
extent, physfacet, controlaccess, subject, persname, corpname,
scopecontent, bioghist...their accompanying attributes, the allowance for
expression of hierarchical relations... Pretty rich set of elements.
Certainly it lacks the specificity needed in certain domains and
disciplines, but to the extent what you are describing shares the
characteristics of a competently arranged and described archives or
manuscript collection you'll probably be pretty well served. There's
likely *some* way of getting what you want. Take Clay's example of his
wrapping MARC in EAD to express subfacted subject headings:

<ead:subject><ead:mdWrap><ead:xmlData><marc:datafield tag="650" ind1=" "
ind2="0">
<marc:subfield code="a">Indians</marc:subfield>
<marc:subfield code="x">Antiquities.</marc:subfield>
</marc:datafield></ead:xmlData></ead:mdWrap></ead:subject>

It is not evident to me why this is more proper or useful than the
entirely EAD encoded:


<controlaccess encodinganalog="650">
        <subject encodinganalog="650a">Indians</subject>
        <subject encodinganalog="650x">Antiquities.</subject>
</controlaccess>

The difference, of course, is mostly semantic. The first views the terms
as a subject consisting of a MARC datafield with two subfield components.
The second views them as a controlaccess heading made up of two subject
terms.  What impedes interoperabilty here is not so much that EAD lacks
the ability to express a subfacted subject heading, but that, in some
circumstances another person or machine process might not expect or
understand a given valid EAD usage and therefore fail to process it as
intended or wanted.

Enhancement of EAD's capabilities via external schemata using W3C Schema or
inclusion of fragments using RelaxNG would be welcome.  However, what also
might be needed is collaborative development of ancillary techniques of
specifying EAD usage to enable well defined applications. These can range
from the highly formal (e.g., Schematron), to moderately formal (something
like METS Application Profiles), to informal (e.g. RLG's Application
Guidelines).

Enough for now,

Terry


On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Elizabeth Shaw wrote:

> HI,
>
> Let me reinforce what Clay has said about changing EAD to accommodate
> another community of practice.
>
>  From a programming/data processing perspective EAD already suffers from
> a level of non-specificity and lack of rigor that confounds effective
> processing for resource discovery.
>
> While the DTD meets a political goal of flexibly accommodating a wide
> variety of extant practice in the community (although now we see
> arguments for even wider practice) it presents less than perfect data to
> the those who are either trying to build systems to effectively provide
> access to finding aids or who desire to migrate the data to other
> schemas for aggregated collections. (Look for example at Chris Prom's
> effort to shoehorn EAD into OAI)
>
> Let me suggest something for a moment. There are many communities of
> practice or discipline in this world. In this instance we have been
> talking about musicologists. They have very specific metadata needs
> because the objects that they describe may well have characteristics
> that are quite different that most objects. I would not describe a piece
> of music in the same way that I describe a sculpture.
>
> At the same time they may want to share their resources in aggregate
> resource locators that share only a few common significant characteristics.
>
> One approach to solving this dilemma is to provide a simple set of core
> elements (the Dublin Core approach). Another has been to generate a DTD
> that accommodates a lot of different practice. It allows alot and
> requires little (EAD approach). And a third approach has been to
> generate a specific DTD for a particular set of needs/community of practice.
>
> The first approach seems unsatisfactory to a specialized community of
> practice. Describing musical object with unqualified Dublin Core would
> not assist in the research of that material for the community.
>
> The second approach leads to inconsistent markup and inconsistent
> practice within a community. Although within a particular institution or
> consortium that decides on a subset of possibilities it can be
> effective. Across institutions it becomes difficult to process the data.
> As Chris Prom and I have both noted, it leads to nightmarish
> transformation problems. Inconsistently encoded data also leads to
> inconsistent resource recovery.
>
> For example one institution does extensive history and the name "Joe
> Smith" appears multiple times in the archives of John Doe because the
> history  describes the heady days of John and Joe's youth. But another
> institution captures minimal data like "correspondence ". At the second
> institution much of the correspondence in that collection are the
> letters that were received from Joe Smith by Sally Jones. There may
> actually be more contained in the second collection about and of good
> old Joe - but a retrieval engine will never find it for you. This is a
> case where the variant standards of description across institutions
> confounds resource discovery.
>
>  From the perspective of the machine processor, another aspect of the
> flexibility is even more problematic. As I have said before the lack of
> consistent handles on which to rely (elements that are not even
> captured) and inconsistent implementation (do I use <abstract>, <note>
> or <p>) all confound resource discovery and display. If I can not rely
> on finding information in a particular location but must seek it in
> numerous places, it becomes very difficult to write the processing
> instructions to either transform that data to an aggregate database or
> even to consistently recover it within a group of finding aids.
>
> The third option - a DTD/Schema targetted to the needs of a particular
> community of practice provides the best retrieval for the community of
> practice. But at first glance, one assumes that it then is least likely
> to "play nice with others". But, in fact, I would argue that a rich, and
> more rigorous descriptive encoding is more easily migrated to a common
> form than a flexible loose encoding.
>
> I would rather spend an afternoon writing an XSLT transformation routine
> to take a constrained set of data succinctly and rigorously defined by a
> community of practice and map it to a more general schema such as an OAI
> DUblin Core implementation than trying to guess how a bunch of
> institutions has implemented, each in their own way, a flexible DTD.
> The potential for resource discovery is so much greater in the first
> instance.
>
> Given rules and definitions of encoding and an expert in the community,
> it is truly a simple matter to generate the data to a more generalized
> form. But starting with flexibility one may never be able to move to
> greater rigor.
>
> So, for what it is worth as one who processes data and builds systems, I
> would rather see musicologists define their community needs in a rich
> and rigorous way. If they find that they want to play with archivists
> mapping their highly specific encoding to EAD will be a day's work.
> Moving in the other way will be nigh impossible.
>
> Dr. David Birnbaum, a member of the TEI council and chair of the U of
> Pitt Slavic department and I have often talked about this in the context
> of TEI. TEI is a behometh - and has the same sorts of inclusive goals as
> EAD. David is a linguist and as such he often has very specific encoding
> needs that almost no one else in the world would care about (except
> other Slavic linguists). He has often talked about having an "authoring
> DTD" - a DTD in which he encodes his data for his own needs. When he
> wants to play nice with others he writes a  transformation to TEI.
> Inevitably he loses some of the richness of the encoding that enables
> him to study the text effectively. But it is a both/and situation rather
> than an either/or.
>
> XSLT transformations were but a gleam in the eye of the XML community
> when the beta version (findaid) of EAD was being developed.
> Transformations from one DTD to another were laborious and time
> consuming. Now we have a tool that obviates the need to be all things to
> all people.
>
> While I appreciate the desire to include everyone in the EAD community,
> it might be better to include them by encouraging them to address the
> particular needs of their community of practice first and then find ways
> to map to EAD than to encourage a less than perfect solution to their
> particular needs. Not only will their resource discovery and analysis be
> richer within their own community but they may well have the opportunity
> to play nice with other broadly adopted standards.
>
> Finally, I question the notion of whether any collection is truly
> hierarchical in nature or whether despite the overlay of "intellectual
> hierarchy" on collection description, the way we think about collections
> is really driven by the fact that collections were physical and
> therefore had to be ordered in a single way. And our tools for
> description were linear - and therefore forced us to think in linear
> hiearchies. My relationship to my archives is really quite non-linear
> -even though my files are. Vannevar Bush and his Memex machine is still
> but a gleam in the eye of people thinking about information
> organization. But that is another email altogether.
>
> Liz Shaw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clay Redding wrote:
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Regarding the paragraph below, this is possible with XML Schema using
> > namespacing.  However, this is not possible using DTD.  At this point
> > you could get a well-formed XML document using namespacing (e.g.,
> > <ead:bioghist><marc:datafield tag="245">), but it would not validate.
> > Those schemas have to allow for mixed content, which most currently do
> > not.
> >
> > So, for instance, if I wanted to put Dublin Core or MARC XML into the
> > <bioghist>, the EAD Schema would specifically have to allow it.  Or, the
> > EAD Schema would have to take the approach that METS does by using XLink
> > (which EAD does support in name only in the DTD) or the
> > <mdWrap>/<xmlData> metadata wrapper elements for nesting in embedded XML
> > data.
> >
> > I converted the v1.0 DTD to Schema and embedded a <mdWrap><xmlData>
> > entity into it to experiment with such wrapping capabilities.  After
> > playing around with MARC, MODS, DC, etc., in EAD, it made up for certain
> > lack of features that attributes such as encodinganalogs now face in the
> > DTD.  It became much easier to deal with the common <subject
> > encodinganalog="650$a$x"> kinds of problems by nesting in MARC or MODS
> > tags inside the EAD as such:
> >
> > <ead:subject><ead:mdWrap><ead:xmlData><marc:datafield tag="650" ind1=" "
> > ind2="0">
> > <marc:subfield code="a">Indians</marc:subfield>
> > <marc:subfield code="x">Antiquities.</marc:subfield>
> > </marc:datafield></ead:xmlData></ead:mdWrap></ead:subject>
> >
> > So, theortetically, you could use any music-centric XML inside EAD.
> > However, as if standardization of markup was hard enough to achieve
> > across repositories, if arbitrary extension schemas were added into EAD,
> > one could make a strong argument that interoperability problems would
> > compound.
> >
> > In general I disagree with making EAD more generalized (or specific) for
> > non-archival purposes.  Another similar markup standard exists out there
> > for marking up "collection"s of materials regardless of format: the
> > Research Support Libraries Programme Collection Description (also in
> > stages of becoming a Dublin Core standard).  You could use something
> > like DC Qualified to add subordinate items to the collection-level
> > description.  Plus that, if you think about it, METS delivers much the
> > same thing that EAD could with its ability to link/declare hierarchical
> > relationships.   EAD doesn't have a monopoly on hierarchical structuring
> > of description.  That's why the music community needs to create
> > something it's own rather that to settle for a 75% solution by using an
> > existing standard.  Reference Liz Shaw's "high heel and mountain
> > climbing" analogy.
> >
> > The music library and music information retrieval communities are in
> > prime position to make the most of their own standards to serve as a
> > model for other disciplines.  Think of your ISMIR bretheren -- they can
> > add wonderful touches to music-based digital libraries, but not through
> > latching onto EAD.   I think they could mirror the archival description
> > movement with their own content standards, structure standards, and
> > presentation standards.  Here at Princeton we're looking at ways of
> > adding things like BWV (or insert other composer catalogs here) numbers,
> > name authority discrepancies, transliteration, etc., into Virtual
> > International Authority Files and XML Web Services to create a possible
> > union catalog/bibliographic utility type of tool for the larger music
> > bibliography community.  Not to mention FRBRization to solve the
> > problems that MARC currently has with displaying music resources in
> > online catalogs to end users.  We look forward to seeing if anyone else
> > out there is interested.
> >
> > Clay
> >
> > Andrew Hankinson wrote:
> >
> >> Its strengths are
> >> that it is a defined structure which maintains hierarchical
> >> relationships, and allows physically separate items to "appear" as a
> >> single collection. (in theory, at least.)  If only there were some way
> >> of actually describing the stuff within the collection....On a more
> >> technical note, I'm not sure if you can mix standards within
> >> one another.  For instance, in a <c> tag within EAD, could you, for
> >> instance, place a <performance> tag taken from the TEI?  A thought that
> >> just occurred to me: Nested Schemas?  Could I, for instance, define a
> >> section as TEI, and then define the next section with, say, MusicXML?
> >> Or define a TEI section WITHIN a MusicXML section WITHIN an EAD
> >> document.  All with validation and/or corresponding DTD's.
> >>  Like I said, I'm new at this, so if my understanding of these things
> >> are a little off, please correct me.
> >>
>

Terry Catapano
Special Collections Analyst/Librarian
Columbia University Libraries Digital Program
212-854-9942
[log in to unmask]

The opinions expressed do not reflect those of my institution, nor perhaps
of myself at a some future time.

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 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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