Yes, I had missed the existence of the <origination> tag; this
would seem to be what I had in mind for <provenance>. However,
<origination> is not allowed to be nested in <controlaccess>.
My ideal construction would be something like
<persname> etc. [or have topical, persname, etc. as
attributes--but that might make it
harder to manipulate all the <*name>s]
This is certainly what MARC requires, more or less -- distinguishing
between "added entries" and "subject added entries. In the current
EAD, as far as I can tell, the only way to make this distinction
(i.e. to tell whether a personal name, for example, is a subject or
an added entry) is to use an ENCODINGANALOG attribute. The point I wanted
to make earlier is that in RAD, one distinguishes between provenance
access points and subject access points (equiv. to added entries and
subject added entries). The way RAD currently reads, though, you're
not necessarily required to differentiate between personal names and
corporate names. However, ISAAR(CPF) -- International Standard
Archival Authority Record -- does make this distinction, so it would
make sense to follow that. Still, I think it's important to be able
to "sort" the various names into provenance vs. subject, without having
to resort to a MARC encoding analog.
TO summarize the above meandering:
- allow <origination> to occur within <controlaccess>
- I think discussion is needed regarding how to tag names which
are subjects vs. names which are provenance access
points (either through nesting or attributes)
I hope this clarifies things somewhat; thanks to Bill for pointing
out my oversight.
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Bill Landis wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Tim Hutchinson wrote:
> > create tag <PROVENANCE>
> > to contain corporate or personal name of creator of records
> > same nestings and attributes as <CORPNAME>, <PERSNAME>, etc.
> > optionally: allow <PROVENANCE> to contain <PERSNAME>,
> > <CORPNAME>, <FAMNAME>, <NAME>**
> > rationale: RAD prescribes "provenance access points", not
> > requiring one to distinguish between personal and corporate
> > names.
> > **similarly, <SUBJECT> could contain the same elements
> Hi Tim;
> Would this <provenance> tag replace the <origination> tag currently in
> existence? It seems potentially confusing in the application to have a
> <provenance> tag coequal to all the <...name> tags. Would it serve the
> same purpose to make "provenance" some sort of attribute value on the
> entire suite of <...name> tags?
> ________ [Bill Landis] ___________________________ [[log in to unmask]]
> Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
> University of California, Los Angeles