This sort of problem is the reason that I have continued to describe
these stylesheets as being a beta version- you are the first person who has
noticed this problem and said anything about it.   Fortunately,  the fix is
quite simple.

    In the part of the Cookbook that deals with the dsc, you will find the
following line in many places.

<xsl:for-each select="scopecontent | bioghist | note | odd
|admininfo/accessrestrict | admininfo/userestrict">

Assuming that you want the style for the organization and arrangement
elements to resemble the others on this list , it is easy to add them in the
followng manner.

<xsl:for-each select="scopecontent | bioghist | note | odd
|admininfo/accessrestrict | admininfo/userestrict | organization |

One could add other elements to the list in the same manner.

Let me know if this does not work for you.


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: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Cookbook question


I know the Cookbook states that the stylesheets "specifically support the
presentation of <scopecontent>, <bioghist>, <note>, <odd>, <userestrict>,
and <accessrestrict> within components." Consequently, we're unable to get
<organization> or <arrangement> information to display at the component
level. We often have series that are broken down into subseries and would
like to have the <organization> and <arrangement> tags available to us to
display at this level. I realize that we can put this information in
<scopecontent> if necessary. Alternatively we could try and adapt the
stylesheets to our needs, but since one of the goals of the Cookbook is to
encourage consistency and standardization across institutions, I'd like to
know what the logic was of not supporting  organization and arrangement in
the stylesheets before we go down that path? Was it simply that it was
considered too detailed?

Any information you can give us will be greatly appreciated,


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