At 11:25 AM 12/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
> At LC, we're starting to move beyond our original encoding of finding
>aids to think seriously about the relationship between encoded finding aids
>and digital images of portions of collections for these finding aids. Most
>digital projects now result in digital reproduction of substantial
>selections from archival collections, not archival collections in their
>entirety. We are worried about the potential for disproportion between the
>more granular description needed to use digital archival objects and the
>folder-level listings in our container lists which continue to prevail for
>non-digital collections and non-digital portions of collections. For some
>projects, we are creating supplementary item lists; there is still a one-to-
>many relationship between one document and the number of images it takes to
>represent it. We are very interested in what institutions have done to this
>point, what you are planning, and any suggestions you may have about ways to
> It seems that there are a number of possible approaches. One is not to
>worry about the varying levels of granularity in the description: while most
>of the container list will be a folder listing, that listing may be
>supplemented by a brief description in some cases where only one or a few of
>the items in the folder have been digitized. In other cases, the folder
>listing will break down into item lists. This approach is planned for the
>Federal Theater Project collection. One possible modification of this
>approach (not planned for FTP) might be to provide multiple stylesheets, one
>intended for users of the digital objects, another which suppresses
>these sub-folder listings to make scanning the container list easier; but I'm
>not sure that such a "brief" display option would be feasible.
> Another approach is to retain folder-level description in the overall
>finding aid, but to embed links to supplemental documents describing items
>within those folders which have been digitized (currently generated using
>processing or database software). These item-level lists are being created
>for the Margaret Mead papers and are being contemplated for other projects;
>I'll provide examples in a subsequent posting, if desired. Links to the
>digital archival objects would then be made from those supplemental lists.
>this approach is followed, what format should the component lists be? SGML
>documents coded using EAD? TEI Lite? HTML documents? Searchable databases?
>Certainly the elements of the item lists could all be represented using EAD,
>but would it pervert the DTD to break an intellectual whole into subdocuments
>for this purpose? Any thoughts or suggestions will be appreciated.
>Manuscript Division, Library of Congress
>[log in to unmask]
>"Not an official communication ..."
We are in the process of attempting a similar project at Northern Arizona
University. Currently my proposal will be to embed links to images within
the folder. So as you say I would have a folder level description and then
link to an image. At the suggestion of Daniel Pitti I am going to look
seriously at using the EBIND DTD for the images that come from the folder.
Thus if I have a folder with 6 letters in it, the EBIND DTD will allow me
to create a table of contents and thumbnails of the items. I am still in
the exploration stage, but I think this might work fairly well.
If you are not familiar with the EBIND DTD you can find it at the Berkeley
I would be most interested to hear what you decide to do.
Curator of Manuscripts