I think the answer may depend on whether you are describing an image as an
archival document in itself or a surrogate of a document for which you
already have an item level description.
This is a discussion we had on the LEADERS project when we were creating
descriptions of original documents, together with transcripts (encoded using
TEI) and images. We decided to use <altformavail> within <c> for
descriptions of the surrogates, as we felt that <dao> was intended for use
when the item is itself a digital object. We used a type attribute to
distinguish between the images and the transcripts.
Hope this helps
0796 268 0529
Fax: 01488 657756
[log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jane E. Stevenson
> Sent: 28 January 2008 16:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Use of <dao> in <did>
> Hi all,
> We are currently developing the means to add images to the Archives Hub
> (http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk) by using the <dao> tag.
> I am curious as to why all of the examples that I have seen, including the
> examples in the Tag Library, put the <dao> into the <did> area. As the
> is for core, summary information about the archive, I would have thought
> that the <dao> element for images of the archives would more rightly
> outside of this within the main <archdesc>, especially for digital
> surrogates of paper-based archives.
> Do most people put the <dao> within the <did> and if so, why is it seen as
> core information?
> Any thoughts would be appreciated!
> Jane Stevenson
> The Archives Hub
> University of Manchester