Responses below.

At 11:06 AM 9/18/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Perhaps 'content' and 'presentation' standards are not the right terms to
>use.  There seems to be some confusion in everybody's mind what exactly each
>should contain or should standardize.  I think both ISAD(G) and EAD have
>elements of both content and presentation.  For example, ISAD(G) prescribes
>a structure (multilevel) and so does the EAD DTD.

I think we need to be careful about conflating intellectual structure
(multilevel description and inheritance) and the visual communication of
that structure to users. They are not the same thing. It is perfectly
possible to describe intellectual content components and structures and to
devise computer representations for them without explicit reference to
layout and presentation. On the other hand, given that archival description
is intended to be useful and must be communicated to be so, it is
impossible and, in fact, it would be irresponsible to devise standards with
anticipating communication to users.

>However, I cannot agree that > EAD is independent from any presentation
>whether electronic, conventional
>paper, Web or whatever.<   You actually say that yourself in the next
>sentence: > All of these presentations are possible DERIVATIVES of EAD, and
>in a wide variety of styles. > (Emphasis added).

While there is certainly a relation between the computer representation of
the intellectual content of archival description and its communication to
users, visual and otherwise, this fact does not make the former dependent
on the latter. Rather it makes the latter dependent on the former. The EAD
instance supports the creation of derivatives.

>But this quibbling aside,
>it is the naming of the EAD elements and their associated explanation in the
>tag library where, I think, Liz Shaw sees a problem.  The explanation of
>elements in the tag library are not explicitly linked to rules of archival
>description (where applicable).

EAD accommodates archival description, good or bad. It is simply a carrier.
I do not think EAD should be tied to one particular content standard. Given
national and cultural differences in archival description, EAD would become
exclusive and thereby fail politically. Standards that fail politically are
not standards. In connecting content standards to EAD, it would be better
to come from the direction of the content standards, which is to say,
content standards based on ISAD(G) should reference EAD. Of course, the
various content standards should inform the ongoing revision of EAD, as it
needs to serve them. I think you touch on this latter point when you say
below that "rules are implied."

>Archival description or cataloguing rules
>are probably the true content standards.  The rules are implied and if you
>look at the explanation in the tag library, and you are familiar with APPM,
>it follows it. Furthermore, it seems to follow the first edition of APPM.  I
>think this is a problem with non-American archival users because they would
>not describe (or make finding aids) using APPM. The terminology used in EAD
>(and APPM) are not familiar to them.  The problems in EAD run parallel with
>the problems which non-American users have with the problems of APPM.  For
>example, I seem to recall that one of them was that APPM (in its first
>edition) stated somewhere that the rules apply to finding aids. ( I do not
>have the first edition of APPM here with me at home.) This results in the
>element Title proper (rules) to translate in EAD to <titleproper> which is
>in the tag library explanation defined as the Title Proper of the Finding
>Aid . In the second edition of APPM a distinction is made between a Formal
>title (1.1B1), and Supplied titles (1.1B2). Only under the Supplied title
>rule is there mention to use a finding aid title if it exists. There are
>many such problems.  The reference in my previous e-mail to the problem of
>EAD addressing the description of finding aids rather than archival
>collections or fonds was about the above.

There is no question that EAD arose in an American context and that much in
it reflects this. As international interest in it has grown, though, the
American presence on the EADWG has decreased, and the international
presence increased. This is an ongoing change. It is anticipated that this
i will lead to a gradual internationalization of the EAD terminology and
text. In fact, in the current round,  many of the revisions are to
terminology and definitions of various elements, and not changes to the
elements themselves. Many of the suggestions were inspired by ISAD(G). I
suspect this will continue.

With respect to APPM, while it certainly had some influence on the design
of EAD, it was not as major an influence as you suggest. Steve Hensen
stated more than once during the initial EAD design work that APPM was
never intended to constitute rules for archival description as such, but
rules for top-level, summary description. Finding aids serve as the chief
source of information for summary descriptions, but are not explicitly
addressed in APPM. In other words, APPM was not intended to provide
guidance in complete top-down archival description.

With regard to the title discussion above, I think you need to be careful
about distinguishing the title of the finding aid (or archival description)
from the title of the archival materials. EAD explicitly distinguishes
between the two, with the title of the finding aid being lodged in the
<eadheader>, and the title or titles of the archival materials in the
<archdesc>. The distinction is between describing the archival description
and describing the archival materials. As for where you get the title or
titles, EAD is silent. That is a content standard issue. EAD does not try
to be a content standard, and if you attempt to judge it as one, it
appropriately fails.

> > Instead of two standards, I would list three: content (or intellectual);
> > representation (sometimes called structural or communication); and
> > presentation. I am not aware of any formal efforts to standardize the
> > latter, though I would  very much welcome such an effort.
>I agree with you here.  ICA/CDS has produced a draft Guidelines for Finding
>Aids (note: guidelines; not a standard).  It was supposed to have been
>posted on the ICA Web site.  But the ICA Web site is, for all intents and
>purposes, extinct for the moment.  I understand that it will be revived
>elsewhere soon (October?) hosted by another host than the National Archives
>of Canada.  I would have liked to refer to these guidelines because they
>contain some very useful presentation recommendations.  We have to wait till
>it gets posted.
>Regarding your comments, Michael:
>I would argue that ISAD(G) is not a content standard or if it is, is
>one with very weak semantics.  RAD, now that's a content standard.  APPM
>too.  You could actually describe something using their rules.  Not really
>so with ISAD(G).  In North America, the CUSTARD project is attempting to
>blend the best of RAD and APPM to create a content standard that is
>independent of output.
>I agree that ISAD(G) is not suitable as a total standard with which to start
>describing archival collections (fonds).  However, it being an international
>standard, it was never meant to be a complete description standard.  It
>could not be that and it was never presented like that.  It is and was
>always presented as the basis for developing national descriptive standards.
>For example, RAD, being the Canadian national standard, is now pretty well
>completely conforming to ISAD(G) as AACR conforms to the ISBD(G) in the
>library world.  ISAD(G) has the same function in the archival world, or is
>meant to have that.
>I also agree very much with the efforts of the CUSTARD project to harmonize,
>or dare we hope for a single North American standard, for archival
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Daniel Pitti" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 3:20 PM
>Subject: Re: XSL and EAD
> > Hugo,
> >
> > You make a distinction between a content standard and presentation, and
> > then state that ISAD and ISAAR are about content and EAD is about
> > presentation. This is not quite accurate.
> >
> > Given this sentence in your message:
> >
> > ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) are independent from any presentation whether
> > electronic, conventional paper, Web or whatever."
> >
> > It would accurate to replace ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) in your statement with
> > EAD:
> >
> > EAD is independent from any presentation whether electronic, conventional
> > paper, Web or whatever.
> >
> > All of these presentations are possible derivatives of EAD, and in a wide
> > variety of styles. Add voice sensitized output and Braille as well. And
> > perhaps other possibilities that we have not yet conceived.
> >
> > I would characterize EAD as an XML-based semantic and structural
> > REPRESENTATION of archival description. It provides a way of representing
> > the intellectual content prescribed in the content standard in a
> > machine-readable and usable form. Presentation being but one use.
> >
> > Instead of two standards, I would list three: content (or intellectual);
> > representation (sometimes called structural or communication); and
> > presentation. I am not aware of any formal efforts to standardize the
> > latter, though I would  very much welcome such an effort.
> >
> > Daniel
> >