This makes me realise that I have a different perspective because we are an aggregator - maybe I don't think so much about whether the material is held in the same repository, because I don't run a repository, if you see what I mean.
Our EAD Editor is set up nicely for <dao> as well, and it would be more complicated to incorporate <extref> links into it and try to explain when to use which to our contributors. It is so much eaiser for us to take one approach to something because we are trying to convey what to do to so many different contributors.
On 13 Jun 2011, at 14:26, Michele R Combs wrote:
> I know, it's a poser, isn't it? Either way feels sort of right but also sort of wrong. I think we're going to go with extref, since in the end we're linking to stuff we don't own, even though it's a digital version of stuff we DO own. That also makes it simpler to find them and check for dead links later on and the EAD is simpler, since if we use <dao> we'd have to add a <daodesc> for the additional text, whereas with <extref> we can just stick the link into the sentence explaining where the items reside, e.g. "A <extref>digitized version of this transcript</extref> is available on the Jones Library website."
> Thanks --
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Stevenson
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: More on dao
> Hi Michele,
> Hmmm, tricky.
> Strictly speaking the idea with <dao> is that the objects are 'part of the described materials'. It seems to me that with this interpretation you shouldn't use <dao>. But it does depend on what 'part of' means.
> It feel like, if we go with strict definitions, you should use <extref> and yet it feels more consistent to just use <dao> to link to digital representations at any location where they do represent the materials you are describing. I'd rather use <dao> and maybe recommend making it clear that these are held elsewhere.
> Jane Stevenson
> The Archives Hub
> email:[log in to unmask]
> tel: 0161 275 6055
> website: archiveshub.ac.uk
> blog: archiveshub.ac.uk/blog
> twitter: twitter.com/archiveshub
> On 10 Jun 2011, at 22:19, Michele R Combs wrote:
>> OK, here's another <dao>-related question.
>> Let's suppose that the Smith Library has a collection that includes typewritten transcripts of interviews. Let's further suppose that some other institution -- we'll call it the Jones Library -- has scanned images of these transcripts in PDF files. To keep it simple, let's suppose that the paper and digital have always belonged to their respective institutions so it's not a case of <separatedmaterial>.
>> In such a case, is it appropriate for the Smith Library to use <dao>s in their finding aid at the item level, next to the listing of the typed copy, to link to the digitized version at the Jones Library?
>> On the one hand, the PDFs certainly are digitized versions of items in the collection, so <dao> seems appropriate. On the other hand, the digital objects don't belong to the Smith Library so perhaps <extref> is more appropriate. (I won't even go into whether <archref> might be appropriate. What's that you say? EAD has too many linking elements? Pshaw!) Or perhaps, since the PDFs don't belong to the Smith Library, nothing should be linked at the item level but instead just an <altformavail> up at the collection level. So many options...
>> My guess is that this situation is not unique and will become increasingly common as institutions collaborate on digitization efforts. Your thoughts?
>> Michele Combs
>> Librarian for Manuscripts and Archives Processing Special Collections
>> Research Center Syracuse University
>> [log in to unmask]