Interesting approach.  I'm not clear what you mean by "relationship
encoding" -- could you post a sample of how one of these postcard boxes
would look in EAD?  You put this in the "type" attribute, perhaps?  Now
we use the type attribute along with the contents of the <container>
element to display the name of the container to the end user, viz:

	<container type="Box">1</container>
displays in the online finding aid as
	Box 1

If I do
	<container type="1.0 cu. ft. box">1</container>
I'm going to get
	1.0 cu. ft. box 1
which doesn't seem as easy to read/understand, plus it doesn't match the
label on the container which simply reads "Box 1."

Michele 

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Russell D. James
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Weird containers

Michelle,

The first place I trained as a lowly graduate assistant had a way of
doing this for non-standard and standard containers before the advent of
EAD that I've found works well now that we have EAD.  They have every
box measured in its relationship to a cubic foot, their standard (and
many other archives) in measuring.  So the normal "Hollinger box" that
measures 10"x12"x15" is close to a cubic foot and is the largest box
they use so they call that a "1.0 cu. ft. box" and then there is the
smaller size everyone makes that is roughly 10"x15"x4" and they call
that a "0.33 cu. ft. box," and so forth.
If every box is measured by its relation to a cubic foot and is
standardized in your repository, then it works fine to know what size of
boxes you are looking for when you go searching.

It also helps to add the function of the box - for instance, if a box is
created to hold postcards and they fit just perfectly, then call it a
"0.xx cu. ft. postcard box" or if it is one for artifacts, then call it
a "0.xx cu. ft. artifact box."  EAD allows this type of relationship
encoding (at least, I've never had the parser say "no").

Russell

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Michele R Combs
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Weird containers

A question for the collective wisdom:  how do you encode material in
non-standard containers?  We have a set list of "accepted" terms for
primary <container> element (Box, Package, Oversize, Mapcase, etc) and
secondary (Folder, Drawer, Reel, etc).  Occasionally we have items that
are in something weird -- a metal box, for example, or a camera case, or
a canvas bag, or a tube, or...

Is it better to only use the <container> element for a consistent list
of standard container types, and put the oddities in the abstract or
other descriptive element?  Or should one use the <container> element
always, even for strange things?  I can see arguments for both
approaches and wondered what others have done.

Thanks

Michele

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michele Combs
Manuscripts Librarian
Special Collections Research Center
E.S. Bird Library
Syracuse University
222 Waverly Ave.
Syracuse, NY  13244
++++++++++++++++++++++++