On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:17:51 -0500 Stephen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Steven et. al.,
> Reviewing some of my encoding I found that I have run into a few similar
> situations, but decided to handle them differently. Here's an example:
>
> Ledgers:
> Box Microfilm Reels Contents
> 3 1 1920-1921
> 2 1922-1923
> 3 1924-1925
>
> <C02 LEVEL="SUBSERIES"><DID><UNITTITLE>Ledgers:</UNITTITLE></DID>
>
> <C03><DID><UNITLOC LOCTYPE="CONTAINER" CONTAINERTYPE="BOX">3</UNITLOC>
> <UNITLOC LOCTYPE="CONTAINER" CONTAINERTYPE="REEL">1</UNITLOC>
> <UNITTITLE>1920-1921</UNITTITLE></DID></C03>
>
> <C03><DID><UNITLOC LOCTYPE="CONTAINER" CONTAINERTYPE="REEL">2</UNITLOC>
> <UNITTITLE>1922-1923</UNITTITLE></DID></C03>
I definitely see this as a viable option for our encoding,
though for our guides I would probably encode it so that
every <C03> includes both the <unitloc> for the box as well
as the folder level to avoid ambiguity.
I would be interested in seeing how people who are using
non-tabular layouts but who are not using nested <C01> ...
<C09> tags for physical units handle listings of items
within folders. I am particularly interested in seeing
ways that one could represent items within folders so that
it is completely unambiguous that the item is within the
folder.
This gets to the heart of why I had chosen to use <C01> ...
<C0x> tags for physical components as well as intellectual
components of collections in the first place. It was my
attempt to unambigously and explicitly tag the hierarchy of
physical components of our collections while at the same
time showing that this physical hierarchy was subordinate
to the intellectual hierarchy.
********************************
Steven Mandeville-Gamble
Special Collections Librarian for Manuscripts Processing
Dept. of Special Collections
Stanford University Libraries
Phone: (415) 725-3478 Fax: (415) 723-8690
Email: [log in to unmask]
********************************
|
