Thanks! clarification below....
>Just wanted to clarify, since I haven't worked with the <physfacet>
>element at all.
>First, in looking at the tag library, it appears that the "source"
>attribute can be supplied on both the <physdesc> and <physfacet> elements
>and that the range of values is the same for both usages.
Sorry, my mistake. I was given problems by the A/E rules file and was not
using "source" in PHYSFACET because there was no corrosponding "label"
attribute, and between the two forgot the "source" attribute was there. So
perhaps the only addition needed is a "label" attribute to PHYSFACET
>Second, I wonder if by the nature of its hierarchical containment, the
>attribute information on the <physdesc> tag isn't automatically inherited
>by any <physfacet> elements contained within it? So that
>necessarily implies that the source for both facet1 and facet2 is "aat".
>The only reason one would need a source attribute on a <physfacet> in the
>above scenario would be to note exceptions to the source declared on the
><physdesc> element, as in
> <physfacet source="lctgm">facet3</physfacet>
Yes, this is what I meant in my email; this would work just as well as
having the "source" available in both PHYSFACET and PHYSDESC, but as you
point out, "source" is already available in both, so perhaps using
inheritence to convey that is more of a guideline than a DTD rule? I like
this solution too, the only confusion I could see though is that there is a
label attribute available in the PHYSDESC, so if label is available in
PHYSFACET would it create confusion as to what the PHYSDESC "source"
applies to: the "label" in PHYSDESC or the "label" in PHYSFACET, or both
but in different ways? If in practice the markup was done either specifying
"source" and "label" for each PHYSFACET *or* specifying "source" in
PHYSDESC and only "label" in each PHYSFACET (exempting exceptions as you
note) it would be clear. (below)
>Does this address part of Richard Rinehart's question?
>As for the label attribute, which is currently only available on
><physdesc> and not on <physfacet>...perhaps Richard could give us an
>example? I'm not sure I really understand how this attribute would be
>used by someone describing a museum item (or any other item for that
>matter!) I guess, based on the above examples, that currently if one puts
>a label attribute onto the <physdesc> tag then all <physfacet>s contained
>within that <physdesc> would inherit that label information. Are there
>examples of cases in which one or more of the <physfacet>s would need an
>exception noted to that label?
Here are examples as to why "label" is needed in the PHYSFACET, not so much
for exceptions, but to give more granularity to the physical description;
"label" would be used to qualify and specify each PHYSFACET. Here CDWA
refers to the Catagories for the Descriptions of Works of Art, a Getty
proto-standard in the field. "label" values are taken from the CDWA:
<PHYSDESC source="othersource" othersource="CDWA">
<PHYSFACET label="materials-description"> bronze </PHYSFACET>
<PHYSFACET label="materials-processes"> hollow sand-casting </PHYSFACET>
<PHYSFACET label="measurements-dimensions"><DIMENSIONS>199 w x 400 h
<PHYSFACET label="measurements-extent"> including bronze cast, but not
marble base, measured at tallest and widest points </PHYSFACET>
This could also be done by including CDWA in the "source" attribute of each
of the PHYSFACET's; either way works. This would help clarify and
differentiate between different physcal aspects of the item; important
access points for museum objects for instance.
So, I guess to clarify my suggestion would be just to add a "label"
attribute to the PHYSFACET element, but I'd be interested in hearing more
Richard Rinehart | Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
Systems Manager & Education | University of California
Technology Specialist | 2625 Durant, Berkeley, CA 94720-2250
[log in to unmask] | http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/
& President-Elect, Museum Computer Network, http://www.mcn.edu/