On 10/24/2010 11:44 AM, Georg Vogeler wrote:
> Jugding by the response to my request it seems that item-level encoding
> is still a minority problem in the EAD comunity. Am I right? Or are
> there already some best practice examples for detailed item-level
Perhaps due to MPLP, and to the time and effort required, that's not surprising?
My guess -- and this is just a hunch -- is that item-level encoding would be
more prevalent at museums, which are more accustomed to accessioning and
describing things on an item basis. I know we rarely, if ever, describe
collections to the item level. (The few medieval volumes we have were sent to
cataloging -- where, of course, they were described at an item level using MARC.)
However, the University of Virginia has used EAD very successfully to describe
its numismatic collection to the item level, see
http://www.scholarslab.org/projects/coins/ and the site itself here
> And returning to the initial question: Seeing the extensive workarounds
> by Richard Higgins, I wonder if an attempt to find the generic tagging
> (like physfacet, genreform, note etc.) and refer to an external
> terminology by @encodingalternative would be an appopriate attempt from
> EAD-point of view?
Looking at the sample EAD Richard included, I don't really see "extensive
workarounds," just a remarkably (!!!) detailed level of encoding, particularly
of names and roles. The sole problem he mentions is not data that couldn't be
encoded, but data that couldn't be encoded in the desired location.
So I don't know that encoding item-level data in some standard other than EAD
would necessarily be any more practical or useful (or easy), unless of course
the nature of the item itself is such that some other standard is a better fit.
For describing artifacts such as pottery or paintings, for example, CDWA might
be a better match.
Of course, storing enormously detailed item-level metadata elsewhere and just
referencing it in the EAD would certainly make your finding aids shorter :)