Print

Print


Well, since you asked, let me express the questions I always raise on this matter.    What practical or theoretical benefit do you get below, say the subseries level?  And, on an implementation level, what is everyone calling all those 11 levels below series?   

Michael 

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Michele Rothenberger
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 8:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: specifying @level for c0x elements


Whoops, so it is.  My mistake, it is indeed "M" not "Req."  Thanks!  

Still a question mark, though: while we have been setting @LEVEL for series and subseries, we have not been specifying it below that.  Are most institutions specifying a level for every c0x no matter what, down to the file and item level?  What are the pros/cons of not doing so?

Thanks --

Michele

-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-
Michele Rothenberger
Syracuse University
Special Collections Research Center
Syracuse, NY
(315) 443-2697
-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-

>>> [log in to unmask] 02/28/06 6:02 PM >>>
Michele Rothenberger wrote:
> I've started running some of our EAD finding aids through the EAD report card and I have a few questions that I thought I'd throw out for consideration.
> 
> 1.  The RC says that every c0# element must have the LEVEL attribute set.  It flags this as "Req" which means "Required by the DTD."  However, this does NOT seem to be required by the DTD, as witnessed by the fact that when I parse my document against the DTD it is not flagged as an error.  Thoughts on this?
> 

The level is required by the EAD Guidelines not the DTD. The report card 
  checks against the EAD guideline requirements.

Liz Shaw