Print

Print


Here at the V&A we are using <abstract> for one- or two-line explanatory notes at file or item level, in the same way as Mary Lacy; we are using <scopecontent>, <bioghist>, <altformavail> etc. for information which is more detailed or of a more specific type. 

The chief disadvantage of this usage is that it means our finding aids are not 100% ISAD(G)-compliant. 

Christopher Marsden

Museum Archivist
V&A Museum Archives, Blythe House, 23 Blythe Road, London W14 0QX
tel: 020 7602 8832; fax: 020 7602 0980; e-mail: [log in to unmask]

>>> Mary Lacy <[log in to unmask]> 30/01/2002 15:03:38 >>>
Stephanie,
 I'd endorse use of "abstract" in this case. You're correct to avoid the
use of note as too general. I think when to use abstract
vs. scopecontent at the component level (below series level) is a gray
area, but my rule of thumb is to use abstract for short phrase summaries
and scopecontent for fuller, paragraph-type content. Since
<scopecontent> must contain <p>, that makes the decision easier as well.
Cheers,
Mary

On
Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Stephanie Ashley wrote:

> I'd like to get confirmation of how other people are dealing with  component notes in their EAD encoding. I'm referring to short descriptions that come after a folder title, for example, that you feel are necessary to provide details about the folder contents,  such as
>
> Correspondence, 1945-1967 (includes letters from Henry Miller)
> Correspondence, 1968-1980 (includes signed photographs of the artist)
>
> We have a lot of this in our "legacy" finding aids that we're converting retrospectively and some of the notes are considerably longer than this. Is <scopecontent> the best way to encode such information? I don't want to use <note> because it's so broad, but <abstract> within the <did> is also an option.
>
> If we go with <scopecontent>, we have some more work to do with our style sheets because it's unable to differentiate between the lower level <scopecontent> notes and the higher level ones, so I'd like to get some confirmation that this is the way to go before we put too much time into tweaking them. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephanie
>
> Stephanie Ashley
> Project Archivist
> Archives of American Art
> Smithsonian Institution
> 202-275-1672
> [log in to unmask] 
>

Mary Lacy
Manuscript Division, Library of Congress
(202)707-8799 fax (202)707-6336
[log in to unmask]