We are thinking both about collection-level and sub-componenet level. I feel that within the <c> tag the <dao> is still more suitably placed in the main <archdesc>, but certainly at collection-level the argument for this seems to be stronger.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Brian Sheppard
> Sent: 28 January 2008 18:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Use of <dao> in <did>
> Jane, the cases I've seen at Wisconsin mostly have daos at
> the c0x level, following the did. But it sounds like you may
> be providing a single collection-level link. In that case, I
> think you're right that it should fall beneath the archdesc
> or perhaps archdesc/scopecontent.
> On January 28, at 10:38 AM, Jane E. Stevenson wrote:
> > 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 <did> is for core, summary information about the
> archive, I would
> > have thought that the <dao> element for images of the
> archives would
> > more rightly reside 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!
> > cheers,
> > Jane.
> > Jane Stevenson
> > The Archives Hub
> > Mimas
> > University of Manchester
> Brian Sheppard
> University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center
> [log in to unmask] (608) 262-3349