On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Leslie A. Morris wrote:

> <c><did><unitid>(1)</unitid><unititle><persname>James, Henry.
> </persname>Letters to <persname>Florence Pertz,
> >/persname><unitdate>1900-1909</unitdate></unittitle><scopecontent><p>Includes
> newspaper clipping and photograph.</p></scopecontent></did></c>
>
> Intellectually, the info in the <scopecontent> above is part of the <did>,
> but is not now valid there. We have, instead, been using the generic
> <note>, which *is* valid within <did>. I personally am happy using
> "note", but can see why some might prefer the more specific
> <scopecontent>.

I'm not so sure I agree with Leslie Morris that the info. bundled by the
<did> and the <scopecontent> in the example above are the same. One
assumes that the information in the <did><unittitle> is identifying
information unique to this particular file or whatever level attribute is
set on the <c> tag, in other words--the info. that distinguishes it from
all the other <c><did><unittitle> combinations in this finding aid. The
information in the <scopecontent> is not of a uniquely identifying nature,
but just describes what kinds of items (besides the letters) are also in
this particular file. The <scopecontent> is currently available for use
in the <c> (right after the </did> is where were using it), I'm not sure
why it is necessary to move it into the <did>? Is it critical for some
reason that the <scopecontent> information listed above be inside the
<did>?

** ______Bill Landis_|_JSTOR Production [log in to unmask]
** "I go out walking I will - Head out walking I will - |313 936.2363
** Go out walking through the middle of midnight - |fax 647.6897
** With a burning inside - And there's nothing they can throw -
** Nothing they can throw me that I can't throw back -
** Or at least know where to hide"___|_Connie Kaldor_|_I Go Out Walking