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  March 2006

EAD March 2006

Subject:

Re: EAD and minimal-level processing

From:

Diane Madrigal <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:32:15 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (162 lines)

Hi Jodi,

We have some finding aids that fall into the minimal level processing
category. We've just started converting our finding aids to EAD, so I
don't know if this is the best way to do it, but FWIW, here's how we've
been handling them. 

If there are no series, the c01 level is simply "file."  If there are
series, the c01 level becomes "series" and c02 is "file." In both cases,
though, for each item there are two container tags, usually one of
type="box" and one of type="folder."  For example, here's some code from
a very small collection that consists of just four folders in one box,
but which does have two series:

<c01 level="series">
     <did>
          <unittitle encodinganalog="245$a">Financial</unittitle>
     </did>
     <c02 level="file">
          <did>
               <unittitle encodinganalog="245$a">Account book
...</unittitle>
               <container type="box">1</container>
               <container type="folder">1</container>
          </did>
     </c02>
     <c02 level="file">
          <did>
               <unittitle encodinganalog="245$a">Account book
...</unittitle>
               <container type="box">1</container>
               <container type="folder">2</container>
          </did>
     </c02>
</c01>
<c01 level="series">
     <did>
          <unittitle encodinganalog="245$a">Land Papers</unittitle>
     </did>
     <c02 level="file">
          <did>
               <unittitle encodinganalog="245$a">Map ...</unittitle>
               <container type="box">1</container>
               <container type="folder">3</container>
          </did>
     </c02>
     <c02 level="file">
          <did>
               <unittitle encodinganalog="245$a">Schedule of the
property....</unittitle>
               <container type="box">1</container>
              <container type="folder">4</container>
          </did>
     </c02>
</c01>

Diane Madrigal
New York State Library
New York State Education Department

>>> [log in to unmask] 03/17/06 12:59 PM >>>
Hi all:
In doing the EAD training for the Northwest Digital Archives and being
very
involved with the NWDA Best Practices, I'm hearing requests from our
Northwest Archival Processing Initiative members (who are a test bed
for the
Greene/Meissner minimal-level processing) for some examples of EAD
encoding
of finding aids from minimal-level processing.

Although we are not very proscriptive in our standards beyond the
<archdesc>
level, we need some degree of uniformity so that our stylesheet works
well.
I know that for many institutions, the descriptions are by the box at
a
<c01> or <c02> level, with or without series divisions. Since the box
is not
considered an intellectual level, this doesn't fit so neatly into the
known
<c0x> levels in EAD.

I have seen two different solutions to this, and thought of another:

1. From Mark Shelstad at the University of Wyoming: Specify both the
c01 and
c02 level as file, with the second designating a subject within a box.
This
treats the box as a file, which is intellectually perfectly sensible.

<c01 level="file>
<did>
<unittitle>[title]</unittitle>
</did>
<scopecontent>[sc note]</scopecontent>
<c02 level="file">
<did>
<container type="box">[number]</container>
<unittitle>[title]</unittitle>
<unitdate>[date]</unitdate>
</c02>
</c01>

2. From Donna McCrea at the University of Montana: Specify the c01 as
series, tag the box as c02, but don't specify a level. As Michael Fox
has
recently observed on this list, not specifying a level below series may
not
matter.

<c01 level="series">
<did>
<unitid>[series #]</unitid>
<unittitle>[title]</unittitle>
<unitdate>[date]</unitdate>
</did>
<c02>
<did>
<container type="box">[box #]</container>
<unittitle>[title]</unittitle>
</did>
<scopecontent><p>[text]</p></scopecontent>
</c02>
</c01>

3. My thought, which may be theoretically correct in some ways but
elevates
the box to an intellectual unit, which is not consistent with accepted
theory of archival arrangement. This example would be for a collection
without series and with a list of subjects contained in a boxes, but
could
also apply at the c02 level if there were series:

<c01 level="otherlevel" otherlevel="box">
<did><container type="box">Box
1</container><unitdate>[date]</unitdate>
</did>
<scopecontent>[scope and content note: usually list of
subjects]</scopecontent>
</c01>

Are there other examples of a box-level description out there? Any
comments
on the relative merits of these solutions would be much appreciated as
well.

Best, Jodi

-- 
Jodi Allison-Bunnell
Consortium Administrator
Northwest Digital Archives
Oregon State University
418 Woodford
Missoula, MT 59801
(Yes, this is really my address!)

(971) 327-8134
Fax (860) 540-8281
[log in to unmask]

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 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