Another option is to use the altrender attribute instead of audience.
According to the EADTL, audience specifies "whether the information
contained in the element should be available to all viewers or only to
repository staff". That can mean several things:
1) All viewers should not even know the information exists
2) All viewers should know the information exists but cannot view the
information
We ran into a similar issue several years ago when we had data that we
didn't want to have displayed, but it needed to be in the finding aid so
that it could be searched. We opted to use altrender="nodisplay". This
meant that the information should be in the public finding aid but
should not display. When we mark something audience="internal", it
truly means that the information should not be in the public version of
the finding aid (or any of the copies that get transferred out of the
repository).
The problem with redacting a finding aid is that it is likely to cause
confusion or curiosity - i.e. draw attention to itself. That may not be
what you intend.
Just another option to consider.
Mark
Custer, Mark wrote:
>
>
> Michele, that makes perfect sense (and I completely overlooked that
> since I’ve yet to use that attribute)!
>
>
>
> So, since I’ve never used @audience, it would be easy for me to use it
> exclusively for redactions (i.e. “internal”) if so needed. However, if
> someone else is using “internal audience” for something slightly
> different, I suppose that that wouldn’t be the case. But that still
> leaves questions in regards to sharing EAD records. Either way, though,
> I don’t think that it would permit you to set an expiration date (unless
> I’m overlooking yet another general attribute or simpler solution)?
>
>
>
> As for the bigger picture, a processing archivist currently has control
> over a finding aid that he/she authors. They are able to make the
> decision about the level of identifiable granularity that they want to
> provide (though these decisions are certainly not impartial, or always
> fully considered), but there’s a question lingering about whether such a
> decision – whether documented or not – will be upheld after the
> collection starts to go online and/or if finding aids begin to
> incorporate editable features (for example, by permitting researchers to
> add their notes).
>
>
>
> In the case of fully digitized collections, though, this is simply not a
> question anymore, as there will be many items in the collection that
> haven’t been fully looked at or comprehended before being made
> accessible to many-more-than-before.
>
>
>
> This is fascinating from a research/access point of view, but it will
> inevitably produce new privacy issues (legal, ethical, and both) that
> will need to be addressed. There is little denying, I’d contend, that a
> search engine has the power to re-bestow currency, if only temporarily,
> to outdated or even false information. And, in my opinion, that’s
> certainly something that should be considered during this transition.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Michele R Combs
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Ethical issues raised by EAD encoding
>
>
>
> Or you could just use the “audience” attribute which is available for
> all EAD elements. Surround the name in question with a PERSNAME
> element, set the @AUDIENCE to INTERNAL, and make your publishing process
> create whatever visible indication you want – a blank, a black bar, the
> word [name redacted], whatever.
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
> (be green - don't print this email!)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Michele Combs
> Manuscripts Librarian
> Special Collections Research Center
>
> Syracuse University Libraries
> 222 Waverly Ave.
> Syracuse, NY 13244
>
> 315-443-2081
>
> [log in to unmask]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Custer, Mark
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:35 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Ethical issues raised by EAD encoding
>
>
>
> This, of course, led me to wonder if EAD should have a redacted tag (or
> attribute
>
>
>
|