In our regional best practices, we have the option of marking up <extent>, <physfacet>, and <dimensions> in the <physdesc>. These fields are roughly equivalent of the ISBD Area 5 elements, and makes crosswalking between EAD and the MARC 300 field simpler. However, the use of these elements is dependent on the type of description we are trying to encode. At aggregate levels like a collection or series we generally only use the <extent> element, while at an item level where the description is based on companion standards like AACR2 we make greater use of <physfacet> and <dimensions>.
Manuscripts Cataloger/Metadata Specialist
Brigham Young University
From: Encoded Archival Description List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Mike Doylen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: subelements in <physdesc>
At my repository, we are discussing the pros and cons of marking up elements
of <physdesc> at a more granular level than we've done in the past.
Previously we've entered information as plain text. We're exploring the
possibility of encoding <dimension>, <extent>, <genreform>, and <physfacet>
What advantages have people found to encoding these subelements separately?
Thank you for your input.