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  December 2013

EAD December 2013

Subject:

Re: Question about <relatedmaterial>

From:

Jane Stevenson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:35:33 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (196 lines)

HI Mike,

Thanks to you and everyone for a useful discussion. I think we'll go with using <relatedmaterial> for now, as that does seem the best option, and I'm not over keen on using <note> unless we really have to. 

I'm not yet up to speed on the use of <relation>. It would take us some time to consider integrating anything like this into the Archives Hub, so a simpler solution is best for now.

cheers,
Jane.

Jane Stevenson
The Archives Hub
Mimas, The University of Manchester
Devonshire House, Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9QH

email:[log in to unmask]
tel: 0161 275 6055
website: archiveshub.ac.uk
blog: archiveshub.ac.uk/blog
twitter: twitter.com/archiveshub

On 17 Dec 2013, at 16:32, Michael Fox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> While not wishing to get into a prolonged discussion about the future of archival description that manages relationships in a more efficient and sophisticated manner, which I fully support, I believe that much more work needs to be done to get us there.  We need to articulate how such a descriptive environment would work, develop systems that support a more relational model, create formal ontologies that express such relationships, articulate how this model might replace/overlay/supplement what we have done with EAD for the past 17 years, and finally to promote this very different approach to archival description and explain to the community why we should expend the resources required to make this shift.
> 
> It is my opinion that all this can and should and will be done but that we are not there yet. This is why the <relation> element in EAD3 is being characterized as "experimental" and not part of the "base" EAD3 schema.  
> 
> As a technical matter, citing the availability of the attributes @role, @href  and @relationtype  as reasons why <relation> would be more powerful than <relatedmaterial> for creating links to other resources is an overstatement.
> 
> An example earlier in this thread uses a <ref> element within <relatedmaterial> as a way to create a link to related material.  <ref> already contains both the @role and @href and I would argue that "related materials" is a more informative expression of the relationship involved than relationtype="resourcerelation." 
> 
> Documenting relationships is the right way to go, but much more work will be required to get us there.  Some of it is already underway.  I challenge the descriptive community to pay attention, get involved, and contribute to the process.
> 
> Michael Fox  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Victoria Peters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Michele
> 
>  
> 
> Well, first of all, if I’ve understood EAD3 right, <relations> gives you a few more options to specify the relation than <relatedmaterial> eg it has @arcrole, @relationtype and @href which <relatedmaterial> does not.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, as a general principle (I’m coming at it from an EAC-CPF perspective), I think it’s better to record any links with related resources as well as corporate bodies, persons and families or functions outside the main body of the archive description. Doing this gives you the potential at least to develop more dynamic descriptive systems in the future. As already mentioned, <relatedmaterial> is a representation of an element in ISAD(G).  And ISAD(G) was created some time ago now and designed to fit all the elements of description in a single representation. Things have, of course, moved on since then and we now have ISAAR(CPF) and EAC-CPF and ISDF and hopefully EAC-F too soon. These developments have given us the potential to begin to develop more dynamic descriptive systems made up of separate but linked descriptions. Of course, if you want, you can continue to create a single all-in-one representation based only on ISAD(G) and if that’s your aim then you can use <relatedmaterial> for links to related resources. But if you want to pave the way for a more dynamic descriptive system, then <relations> is the way to go.
> 
>  
> 
> Victoria
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs
> Sent: 16 December 2013 19:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question about <relatedmaterial>
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Victoria –
> 
>  
> 
> I’m curious what you mean by “much more dynamic” – could you elaborate a little bit?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Michele
> 
>  
> 
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Victoria Peters
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:00 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question about <relatedmaterial>
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Jane and others
> 
>  
> 
> EAD3 has a solution for this, I believe, with the new <relations> element. The tag library says:
> “relationships with other resources such as archival collections…may be expressed using a <relation> element with the @relationtype attribute set to ‘resourcerelation’..”
> I don’t know if this is intended for internal references as well as others but I don’t see why not.
> 
>  
> 
> I would think that this is a much more dynamic way of linking to related material than via <relatedmaterial>.
> 
> Of course, this may not be an answer right now until we’re all upgraded to EAD3 but it’s worth bearing in mind.
> 
>  
> 
> Victoria
> 
> Victoria Peters
> 
> University Archivist
> 
> University of Strathclyde
> 
> Andersonian Library
> 
> 101 St James' Road, Glasgow G4 0NS
> 
> Tel: 0141 548 5825
> 
> Fax: 0141 552 3304
> 
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 
>  
> 
> University of Strathclyde Archives and Special Collections website strath.ac.uk/archives
> 
> Follow us on Twitter @StrathArchives
> 
>  
> 
> The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body registered in Scotland, no SCO 15263
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Rush
> Sent: 16 December 2013 15:01
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question about <relatedmaterial>
> 
>  
> 
> Jane,
> 
>  
> 
> This has come up for me a few times.  As my antipathy for <note> is well documented, I have always advocated for using <relatedmaterial> for internal references. I will ask the tag library editorial team to consider revising the element definition to make it more accommodating of the ISAD(G) usage.
> 
>  
> 
> Mike
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Jane Stevenson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I'm just wanting to advise an archivist who wants to refer to related material that is within the same collection.
> 
> The <relatedmaterial> tag is NOT for materials related by provenance.
> However, it is comparable to ISAD(G) 3.5.3
> ISAD(G) 3.5.3 is for "information about units of description in the same repository or elsewhere that ARE related by provenance or other association(s)
> 
> Has anyone come up against this issue before?
> 
> I know <separatedmaterial> is for materials related by provenance, but it's for materials that have been separated from the described materials. In this case there is no separation - it's all one collection, but the cataloguer wants to point researchers to related items within the collection.
> 
> cheers,
> Jane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Stevenson
> The Archives Hub
> Mimas, The University of Manchester
> Devonshire House, Oxford Road
> Manchester M13 9QH
> 
> email:[log in to unmask]
> tel: 0161 275 6055
> website: archiveshub.ac.uk
> blog: archiveshub.ac.uk/blog
> twitter: twitter.com/archiveshub
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
December 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager