Speaking on behalf of the task force that prepared the RLG EAD guidelines, we made our decision on this basis: Since the <eadheader> elements all refer to the materials being described, rather than to the EAD instance itself, it seemed appropriate to make MARC21 the encoding analogue, since the rereferenced MARC21 fields also describe the collection materials, and not their electronic surrogate.  The <eadheader> elements, in contrast, do describe the EAD instance and not the collection materials it describes.  Since the DC element set *can* appropriately refer to the finding aid itself (one of its purposes is the discovery of web documents), as a unit of intellectual and physical content, it seemed sensible to make DC the encoding analog for those elements.

--Dennis Meissner, Minnesota Historical Society

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
John Bewley
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EAD, MARC and Dublin Core

I am seeking opinions in the matter of relatedencoding preferences. I'm 
interested in hearing justifications for mapping to either Dublin Core or 
MARC (or mixed practices using both). I understand the potential for using 
mapping to MARC for the creation of catalog records. What do people see as 
the purposes of mapping to Dublin Core? Do you consider it more 
far-reaching in its potential for future harvesting? If so, how?

The EAD Cookbook recommends setting mapping to MARC21 in <ead> but the RLG 
guidelines seems to suggest that Dublin Core be used for <eadheader> and 
MARC for <archdesc>.

John Bewley
Music Library
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
716 645-2924 Ext. 1446