> My understanding in each of these cases is that the RC is saying that an
> element or attribute is mandatory and suggests *possible* values for MARC,
> not that the values are mandatory. As for the appropriateness of the MARC
> values, it all depends on how one would go about cataloging the finding
> aid, which is what is within the scope of the eadheader (and its
> descendant encodinganalogs), not the material described in the finding
> aid. That said, the values seem reasonable.
Aha. So if I understand correctly, all the encodinganalog data in the
eadheader should be understood to map to a MARC (or Dublin Core) record for
the *finding aid* while all the encodinganalog information in the archdesc
should be understood to map to a MARC (or DC) record for the *collection*,
right? Makes sense now that you say it, I just hadn't thought of it that
way for some reason.
What are the pros and cons of including or not including encodinganalog data
in the eadheader?