MODS would be the obvious choice - see www.loc.gov/standards/mods. If
you want to preserve collection level information (particularly the
structure of the collection), you could use EAD for this and MODS
records for the detailed descriptions. If you're planning to produce
digitized editions of your items, you should certainly used METS (www.
loc.gov/standards/mets) for this. Again you can use it in combination
with EAD if you wish to preserve the collection structure.
Hope this helps,
On 06/11/03 13:24:21, Elizabeth Shaw wrote:
> Why are you trying to use EAD for describing music when there are a
> number of alternatives that might give better descriptive options?
> Unless you truly have a "collection" of music (or your music is a
> of a larger archival collection) in which trying to represent the
> heirarchical nature of the collection is paramount (or the a
> context of the objects in a larger whole) it seems like EAD is not
> particularly useful for your task.
> You will likely end up with "tag abuse" (cramming things into
> where they don't belong) or not precisely encoding your information.
> I don't know a lot about music description but there are groups and
> projects that have thought about music description alot
> like ISMIR (international conference on music information) and the
> Historic American Sheet Music
> Lester Levy Sheet Music
> And you might want to explore their descriptive methods.
> Unless there is a very compelling reason to use EAD because the music
> must be described as a part of a collection, it seems trying to use
> to describe music is like wearing a too small pair of high heels to
> hiking. They don't fit, they are frustrating to get on and once they
> are on you can't hike very well. The paucity of music related
> in EAD is by no means a flaw in EAD. EAD is just meant for other
> Liz Shaw