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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  December 1995

EAD December 1995

Subject:

EAD Magic Micro Tour

From:

Helena Zinkham <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 30 Dec 1995 17:02:07 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (259 lines)

This message is posted by Helena Zinkham to EAD listserv -- realizing that
parts may be cryptic if you weren't at the various 0meetings, but wanting
easy way to check in with all the early implementors. It's also long.


(1) WHERE'S THE EAD DTD?? Well, Beth Davis-Brown called Debbie LaPeyre
again on Friday. Debbie's plan is to FTP the DTD to Daniel next week, in
time for the group meeting next Thursday in Los Angeles about application
guidelines. (That's Michael F., Anne G-S., Steve H., Kris K., Daniel P.,
Tom LaP., Janice R -- using the CLR grant.)

Janice and I asked: could Debbie send the DTD to Beth, too; whatever is
ready on Tuesday, send it in. Beth's office will PRINT AND XEROX COPIES
FOR the LA TEAM and FED EX TO UCLA GUEST HOUSE TO BE THERE ON WEDENESDAY.
(Trying to save Daniel some xeroxing time, and also have something ready
for those who get there Wed. to start reading the DTD before the meeting
begins ... tho Anne and Tom won't be at the guest house.) If the DTD
comes on Tuesday, we'll send out an eMail.

How and when does DTD get to rest of early implementors? (That's for
others to sort out.)


(2) With caveat: AGREE with Steve and Michael and Janice and others that
moving the DTD forward is more important than protracted theoretical
debate; YES, there will be changes and wonderful improvements in future
years as more people use the DTD--nothing we do is 'in stone'-- no need
for perfection now -- just like with MARC, evolution is a good technique.

The elements also need to be readily comprehensible to catch on with
archivists.

So, please hear this out. It takes me meanderingly too long to write it,
but the bottom line may be a few quick updates to the DTD. If Michael,
Janice, and Kris (earlier eMails?) are wondering about the UV element,
it'll crop up during the application guidelines anyway. Hoping here to
prevent long re-debate with this eMail.

Since I couldn't follow the thread of the UD, UV, CD, CV alternatives from
Michael's and Janice's eMails, Janice and I got out some color markers at
a white board with Beth. In just 45 minutes, what surfaced supports what
Michael and Janice wrote about ... they have a line on some SHORT CHANGES
that could make the alpha version easier to use.

What follows is my blend of what I read in eMail messages and the color
marker session discussion; I'll trust those who feel mis-quoted to chime
in.


(2a) Define "ARCHDESC" to mean "UD"

as in: 'the whole UNIT being described.' (Janice's eMail proposed adding a
'UD' element under ARCHDESC, but at the board, we realized "ARCHDESC" is
serving this overall 'wrapper' function, and, indicating 'whole unit.')
(Symmetrical as it would be to rename "ARCHDESC" as "UD" ..., I'm still not
a UD fan; sounds too much like 'unit of description.')

Since we had "UD" elements in earlier models, it gets hard to keep track
of what's being suggested here. In Ann Arbor, there was an "ARCHDESC"
with one "UD" below it, and inside the "UD" there were layers of "CDs."
BUT, that "UD" was the counterpart to "ADD"-- it meant 'whole unit' ...
In D.C., that "ARCHDESC" became "FINDAID" -- the wrapper for "ARCHDESC"
and "ADD." So, we're 'just' suggesting the return of the idea of "UD" as
part of definition for the new "ARCHDESC."

     old: archdesc new: findaid
             ud archdesc
               cd cd
             add add

In Daniel's next (October) model, "UD" appeared as a repeatable
descriptive view, with attributes that would explain its type as
'overview' 'analytic overview' and 'in-depth.' This approach reminds us
that the 'whole unit' actually gets described several times in a finding
aid: first an introductory overview (from Intro, Biog-Hist, Scope Content
thru Admin Info); second an optional analytic overview of series; third,
an in-depth view in the container list (which is sometimes a combined
series summary/container list).

     BUT, in November at LC, in looking at the SAA manual on Inventories
and Fred Miller's book, and, in discussion -- this approach to identifying
'sections' of a finding aid broke down. Although my rough approach to
finding aids accepts this 'three chapter' scenario, it also seemed to
diminish the importance (or high-levelness) of sections like
'ScopeContent' -- which are also overviews of the whole UNIT. Parts of
the "introductory overview" could also be called "UDs." The manuals also
put 'ScopeContent' on a par with 'Descrip of Series' and 'Container List'
-- the manuals see 6-7 parts of a finding aid. So, the October approach
to UV's accomplished one thing, but made another thing harder to
understand.

This realization lead us to talk about "VIEWS" -- and to decide that since
we're trying to build a model for future finding aids, too -- we don't
want a "UD or UV" element that 'only' demarcates existing "sections" of
paper finding aids. We turned "UD" into "UV (Unit View)" -- and
gradually defined it to mean CONTENT VIEW -- see 2c below.

(At this point, I stopped to eat an almond cookie; pretty good, too.)

It's real hard to follow these conversations without a finding aid or
diagram in front of us, but could Sharon weigh in on this idea? There's a
note in the minutes that says you want to be able to accomodate the
diagram 'Pattern A' of your handout. Does defining ARCHDESC to include
the "ann arbor UD" hinder your Pattern A? (Maybe it's already defined
that way in the new DTD; well, we'll see soon.)



(2b) Rename "CV" (Component View) to be "CD" (Component Description)

Michael proposed this; it gets us out of the 'view' confusion, and also
strikes Janice as a better expression for what goes inside that element.
Trying for the symmetry of "UV" -- "CV" seems to have bought us trouble.



(2c) Tinker with the "UV" (Unit View)

(2.c.i) Let "UV" stand for those who understand it, but add elements for
"Description of Series" and "Container List."

(to go with "Scope Content View" element that Debbie and Daniel added).

     Advantage: easier to convert existing paper finding aids, because
portions of the printed finding aids become easier to recognize. and tag.
Don't have to 'map' the Container List into "UV with attrib. Container
List." Both Michael and Janice have proposed this approach.
      Disadvantage: Lose some of the neutrality of language we were aiming
for to encourage appearance of applicability to collections that might not
use "Desc. of Series" (Being one of those collections, I'm now happy to
trade "UV" with an attribute for "Contents List", for an element called
"Container List" but the TEXT IN THE FINDING AID says "CONTENTS LIST".
Seems way too hard to explain that you have to open "UV" and set an
attribute for "Container List."
     Disadvantage: An element for "Desc of Series" might encourage new
finding aids to use separate Desc. of Series, but the DTD tagging should
make a combined 'container list-series descrip' serve both roles (display
a summary of series-only info; show me the individual series description
right with the info about the 'container list.') Let the application
guidelines show the element is for retrospective tagging?

In D.C., we proposed that "UV" be: "Part of archival description that
presents a view of the CONTENT of the whole unit." The goal of "views"
was to help show the relationship between the finding aid description and
the collection: One view is "Administrative Information" -- this 'view',
though, is expressed as a named element with subelements, not as a "UV."
For "Context" info., we used the "ADD" element (Adjunct Descriptive Data).
For "Content Views" -- we used "UV."

The first of the 'Content Views' is called "Scope Content" in traditional,
paper finding aids. Since Scope Content is an element that might also be
needed at the series, subseries, or item level of finding aid, it was left
as the sole element within 'UV." The other three kinds of content views
"Desc. of Series," "Container List," and combined Desc of
Series-Container List were going to be attributes set on "UV" (which
could be used multiple times.


To some extent, Debbie and Daniel balanced things out by making "SCope
Content View" (one of the content views) it's own element; just like
AdminInfo and Context views are elements. But, that left UV to cover
just Descrip of Series and Container List ... so, just make those two
elements, too?

Anne should speak to this "views" role; she was articulate in D.C.; ideas
related to FUTURE FINDING AIDS, where people should be able to navigate
or hone in on the information that most helps them -- that can mean
knowing the "function" of the information; is it 'about' the collection,
or, is it administrative advice, like rights restrictions.

BUT, the word "VIEW" is confusing. Steve deR mentioned that 'view' has a
special meaning with databases: 'a selection of a database presented in a
certain way.' Daniel used views nicely in one model description to mean:
overview and analytical view. Now, we're sort of using 'view' to mean:
kind of information provided -- content, administrative, context. But
there's not a 'view' element to go with each of the views. There's only
one element named for a 'view': UV -- part of ARCHDESC that presents a
view of the content of the whole unit.


(2.c.ii) If have trouble writing application guidelines for "UV",
and establish elements for Desc. of Series and Container
List, then drop "UV."

(2.c.iii) Don't add 2 elements for "Desc. of Series" and "Container
List" -- and Janice and I will pretend that there's a "UV-DS" and a "UV-CL"
and see how things go in the alpha version.

(2.c.iv) Add an element called "VIEW" to contain all of the elements like
admininfo, bioghist, scopecontent. Janice showed this on the board in a
model most attractive for its simplicity:

                DID
                VIEW
                CD
                  DID
                  VIEW
                  CD
                    DID
                    VIEW
                    CD


And, as mentioned in DC meetings, set attributes on individual elements
to say "Content view" "Context view" "Admininfo" etc. (NOPE, we
can't imagine tagging at that level of detail.)


(3) On to shorter, ground.

(3.a) for the EADGROUP question, maybe it's also a helpful umbrella in
that it helps bundle separately compiled finding aids, without having to
slip (re-code) the "UD-CD" relationships down a level. Each separate
finding aid stays as a "Unit" (This was for Michael's last query.)

(3.b.) those TITLEPAGES, last April's UCB model showed some nice opening
screens for the finding aids it coded. But, it turned out to be a
technique that mixed apples and oranges in the SGML world -- the coding
of that kind of data belonged in a header. It has dawned on me that my
pleas to 'see a title page' printed from a header might be answered if I
knew how to take advantage of the re-coded finding aids Daniel has put up
at Berkeley, .... well, topic for here.

(3.c) the CONTROLLED ACCESS element, Kris wrote wondering where it
belonged; Janice agreed it ought to go down a level; and Michael suggested
tucking it in ODD. I'd been thinking it was the batch of 'headings' that
applied to whole collection (the 6xx headings out of a MARC collection
record, but embedded in the finding aid to help those who search only
among finding aids, or, don't have MARC recrods pointing to the finding
aids) ... So, it made sense to me at its current 'high level' AND I'm
content to have it go down into ODD, too. Janice asks: would use
Controlled Access element anywhere in finding aid? (She hopes so.)

(3.d) for the SOURCES LIST: a summary: Michael listed all that are in
MARC Subject/index Term sources: aat, lctgm, gmgpc, lcsh, local, mim,
nmc, rbgenr, dot, mesh, lcnaf, lcsaf, aacr2, other. (How would lcsaf be
different from lcsh? Would aacr2 be used to indicate the rules used to
formulate the heading, rather than a list from which a heading was taken?
So, might use BOTH aacr2 and lcnaf, or, aacr2 and local?)

Steve added 2 Canadian sources: Canadian Subject Headings and Repertoire
des vedettes-matiere.

Let the application guidelines settle whethere cite by code or name.


(3.e.) for STATUS ATTRIBUTES, I like Janice's blending of what I suggested
and Michael thought okay. Four statuses: Unverified Partial Draft;
Unverified Full Draft; Edited Partial Draft; Edited Full Draft.



                HAPPY NEW YEAR


P.S. Could someone who's going to the LA meeting print out this message
and take it for Janice to read? She won't have access to eMail until she
gets to LA, which helps explain why I'm trying to write for both of us.

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

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
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