LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EAD Archives


EAD Archives

EAD Archives


EAD@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  May 2011

EAD May 2011

Subject:

Re: EAC and labels

From:

"Fox, Michael" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Encoded Archival Description List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 25 May 2011 13:16:02 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

Why not just say "name"?  The reader can tell at a glance what type of  
name it is, should they care to make such a distinction.

Conveying the entity's role- agent, author, whatever is anithe  
matter   Names exist in the EAC context independantly of particular  
roles which is a concept that only makes sense in the context of the  
entity's relationship to a particular function or body of records   Of  
course in EAD, all the name elements have a ROLE attribute to specify  
the relationship between the named entity and the records.

Michael Fox



On May 24, 2011, at 11:49 PM, "BRIAN TINGLE" <[log in to unmask] 
 > wrote:

> In an EAC prototype I'm developing an interface for [1]  as part of  
> a research project I tried to keep the labels matching the EAC  
> terminology, giving the benefit of the doubt to the work that was  
> done to come up with those terms by the schema developers until it  
> proves confusing for users.
>
> Using that logic, I would go with "identity" or maybe "name entry"  
> after the eac element names -- but I din't actually use those words  
> as labels for anything in the SNAC prototype design.  I do have  
> "authorized form of name" show when you hold the mouse over the name  
> on the identity record page; and in the browse I call them "Names",  
> "Person Names", "Corporate Body Names", and "Family Names" depending  
> on the entityType limit.
>
> [1] http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/search
>
>
> On May 24, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Elizabeth Perkes wrote:
>
>> Is there a consensus yet about how to label a corporate, personal,  
>> or family name in a way that makes sense to both archivists and  
>> users? Since we are a government office collecting government  
>> records, traditionally we just call these names "agencies." The EAC  
>> standard uses the term "agent" and "entity." To me, "agent" sounds  
>> like somebody from the CIA or FBI. We've relabeled fields in our  
>> database to call them "entities" since if we add all the contextual  
>> information possible, we very well could have people or even a  
>> First Family recorded in this file. I don't know if a researcher  
>> would know what an "entity" was if asked to do a keyword search on  
>> such a field, although search results that display "creating  
>> entity" might help. For them, the term "record creator" or "author"  
>> might be best understood, but EAC allows for entry of people or  
>> corporations that did not directly create the records, even though  
>> they may provide some context into that creation. Using "Corporate,  
>> Personal, or Family name" usually takes up too much space on screen  
>> for archival data entry, and researchers might confuse that search  
>> box with the name of the person they are researching, instead of  
>> the entity that created the records. Using just "name" is even more  
>> generic. What would you label these things?
>>
>>
>> Elizabeth Perkes
>> Electronic Records Archivist
>> Utah State Archives
>> 346 South Rio Grande
>> Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1106
>> 801-531-3852
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> The State Archives' hours of operation are Monday-Thursday, 7:00  
>> a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and closed on Friday. Please make a note of these  
>> hours.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options