Print

Print


Daniel,
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.

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).  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). 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.


> 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
description.



----- 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
>