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:

Monospaced 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:

Clay Redding <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:28:58 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Terry,

I think you're spot on, especially with that last paragraph. Also, in
your statement about EAD being an enabler of interoperability. Given
EAD's laxity, it's still easier to predict the existence of a given
element using an XPath search on a known element name than it is to try
to predict the location or existence of a piece of info in a random HTML
file. I've used this listserv this week as a platform for why the music
community should seek its own solutions, and hopefully I've done so in a
manner that doesn't put down EAD. This is the music community's issue
to solve, not EAD's. I just simply don't think EAD should try to become
any more general than it already is for *bibliographic* description,
unless we can build it in after having the needed conversations and
actions regarding lax descriptive practices extant in the *archival*
realm.

For what it's worth, I don't think the lack of interoperability comes
from directly from EAD. The makers of the DTD have done as best as they
can to keep up with the various national and international content and
presentation standards that exist. IMO the real focus needs to be on
determining what level of prescription can be added into new standards.
I've argued in the past that archivists (at least Americans) don't beg
for flexibility in descriptive practices per se. If prescription
existed, I sense the rate of standards adoption, compliance, and usage
would rise. Most archivists I speak with essentially say they'd like
prescription from the data content and presentation standards. Now that
DACS/CUSTARD has ended (this might not be accurate, as I never heard
what happened to the project), I urge the standards creators to at least
research the demand for more prescription when developing the new
content standard (preferably with strong prescription for presentation
of data elements). This is all easier said than done, I know, but then
EAD could be revisited to avoid the laxity.

Clay

Terry Catapano wrote:

>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
>
>
>
>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

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