Bill Landis makes a useful point about what the <did> is, and it did make
me go back and re-read some of the tag definitions again (which I seem to
be doing a lot of recently!).
My reason for putting <note>, and wanting to put <scopecontent>, inside
the <did> is that it does seem to be information unique to that unit. And
looking at the definition of <note>, it says it "provides additional
information about the material described." <scopecontent> _summarizes_
information about the material being described, implying that all that
information is specified. So, as I read those two definitions, I seem to
be right that statements such as "Includes photographs and clippings"
belong properly in <note> and part of <did> since it is information unique
to the unit.
However, reading again the definition of <did> as "identifying fundamental
descriptive information need to identify the component" then I'd have to
say that neither <note> or <scopecontent> should be inside <did> because
it's not "fundamental" (or it wouldn't be in a note).
I seem to see a slight contradiction in the DTD here, about what is
"fundamental" and what isn't. And perhaps more discussion will clarify
what the real purpose, in SGML terms, is of the <did>, and whether we can
do without it (in part) as Kris Kiesling has suggested.
On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Bill Landis wrote:
> 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
> ** ______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
Leslie A. Morris
Curator of Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library
Houghton Library, Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
e-mail: [log in to unmask]