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 1995

EAD December 1995

Subject:

Comments from Michael Fox (1)

From:

Randall Barry <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:23:07 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 95 14:23:12 CST
From: "Processing Department" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Subject: EAD


Hello all,
Hope everybody survived the holidays.

The following is in reply to Debbie's note of 12/21 with references to
Kris' comments on Daniel's high level model and Helena's replies to Debbie.

1.   EADS TOGETHER.  I can imagine combining several series level finding
aids together ex post facto to form a single finding aid for a record
group or a group of manuscript collections for individuals, say a family
grouping.  I'm not sure how this would work out until I can see the model
you have developed.  The problem of concatenation is that one usually
needs some higher level data at the front to draw the pieces together
(record group/fond info for example).  Do you provide for same?  One could
of course create a finding aid for an entire record group from the very
beginning but that would not cover instances where one would pull stuff
together later.  The problem that I see is that a consolidated finding aid
of this sort would be at a higher level of aggregation.  For example, if
one pulled together a number of series descriptions into a single record
group entry, the new finding aid would have data elements in the DID
reflecting info re the record group.  In effect, every level in the
hierarchical layering of a finding aid would "slip down" one level.  I
can't envison how that would work here.  Not that it couldn't.

2.  TITLE PAGE  I'm with Helena.  It looks like a typographical concession
where minimal content encoding is warranted.  Just enough to get the
layout to look right.  One would pull substantive info for
displays/navigators out of the DID or header since the content and even
very existence of a title page would be so idiosyncratic.

3.  SCOPE CONTENT  A BIG flag here for me.  I understand Debbie's concern
about having only a single element in an otherwise empty UV which would
occur if one has a UV that is a scope and content note at the unit level
and the other unit identifying data is sitting elsewhere (the did, etc.)

Back to another topic for a moment.  The CV or UV option in the high
level model seems wrong.  My notes suggest that CVs exist only within
UVs.  In the new model, we said that a unit level scope and contents
note, a series listing, and a container listing were all views of the
contents of the particular unit being described.  They exist at the same
level.  In the latter two views, there will be additional information
about subordinate components of the unit described.  These are CVs and they
can posses all the same data elements as the unit (title, dates, extent,
origination, scope and content).  In these later UV types, there is apt to
be little if any information (outside a header) that is not within one of
the subordinate CVs.

Back to Debbie's comment which points up the chief problem with the DC
model.  Within the UVs of the types series listing and container list, the
identifying data elements (title, dates, extent, etc.) are present.  But
not in the UV of the type Scope and Content Note describing the entire unit
described in the EAD.  (Boy is that a qualifier.)  So it looks funny and
rightly so.

Aside-  What has happened here, to my mind, this is a wonderful example of
the situation where one fixes one thing and breaks another.  I personally
was never convinced that there was a problem with the older model that
needed changing but we did and now we have to fix this problem.  (There may
have been some SGML-type difficulties but it made more archival sense to
me.)

Anyway I see three options.

1.  Debbie's solution- create a SCOPE CONTENT VIEW.  As I see it, all this
does is create another element which is a specific instance of a view, one
that contains only a scope and content note, so as to differentiate it from
other views that have more stuff in them.   I don't see that this buys us
much. Linguistically, it is confusing since other views may also contain
scope and contents notes.

2.  Move the scope and content note for the unit out of the UVs entirely.
Treat it within archdesc as an element at the same level as did, bioghist
and admininfo.  Most archivists would feel comfortable with the
point of view that scopecontent is fundamental data of the same
significance as did, bioghist, et al.(certianly more integral
than controlaccess).  The UVs then become those components that contain
information at any more detailed level than that of the unit as a whole.

3.  As above, except put a UV wrapper around those elements that
describe the unit as a whole (the unit's did, scopecontent, bioghist,
etc.)  This is really where we were in Ann Arbor.  It recognizes that
these unit-level elements exist in parallel with the same elements as
they appear within the other UVs and CVs.  There is a symmetry that exists
within these hierarchical structures, even if all the elements are not in
place, sometimes because they are not know, are not significant or are
implied.  I personally prefer this approach but could live with no. 2.

CONTROLLED ACCESS ATTRIBUTE
  How about the following from the USMARC Code List for Relators,
Sources, Descriptive Conventions, Part IV, Subject/Index Term Sources:
aat, lctgm, gmgpc, lcsh, local, mim, nmc, rbgenr, dot, mesh, lcnaf,
lcsaf, aacr2, other.

STATUS ATTRIBUTE
   I like Helena's choices.  Perhaps add "core," probably to replace or
supplement "minimal."

Enough damage for now.

Michael
Processing Department
Minnesota Historical Society
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]

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

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