Print

Print


Have you considered tagging the numerical designations as <unitid>s?


Michael J. Fox
Assistant Director for Library and Archives
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd West
St. Paul, MN 55102-1906
651-296-2150  (phone)
651-296-9961  (fax)
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Ashley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: numbering series/subseries titles


Hello All,

As we continue to work on implementing EAD (we are currently in the process
of assessing whether to adopt the encoding protocol of the EAD Cookbook)
we've come across a problem and I'm hoping that some of you kind and
knowledgeable people can give us some advice.

In our repository we commonly assign numbers to our series and subseries. We
find that this enables us to reflect the hierarchical arrangement of the
materials we are describing and to express the intellectual structure of our
finding aids. Indeed, with large and complex collections which may have two
or more series containing subseries of similar materials, it's a very useful
way of clarifying which records belong to which series. Below is an example
of how we've been encoding our series/subseries titles:

<c01><unittitle>Series 1: Correspondence,
<unitdate>1913-1978</unitdate></unittitle>

<c02>><unittitle>1.1: New York Office Correspondence,
<unitdate>1917-1930</unitdate></unittitle></c02>

 <c02>><unittitle>1.2: Paris Office Correspondence,
<unitdate>1913-1922</unitdate></unittitle></c02>

</c01>

Although we believe the practice of numbering series/subseries is fairly
common practice in archives, we've been unable to find many examples of
EAD-encoded finding aids on the web that show these numbers in their
unittitles. Is it considered bad practice to include an assigned
series/subseries number in the <unittitle>? I understand that, strictly
speaking, "Series 1" is not, for example, part of the unittitle for records
labeled "Correspondence," but since a series title is essentially a term
created by the archivist anyway, how big of a tagging sin is it to add a
numerical value to that term? Can anyone foresee any problems with us
continuing to encode our series/subseries titles in this way, particulary in
regard to sharing our finding aids down the road?

Thanks for any input you can give us,

Stephanie


Stephanie Ashley
Project Archivist
Archives of American Art
Smithsonian Institution
202-275-1672
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>