Wouldn't subcomponents fall under <mods:relatedItem

  All the fields in MODS are available under relatedItem, so you could
possibly describe each individual component as fully as you do the
parent record.





From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Farris Wahbeh
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 3:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EAD and MODS crosswalks?


As I am processing a collection of audio recordings, I can't help but
wonder if there is a crosswalk 
between MODS and EAD? As MODS is based on MARC21, I'm assuming the
crosswalk is already 
and inherently built in to the EAD document if one was using MARC21 @
relatedencoding in 

However, in this case I feel MODS elements would describe items in a
clearer fashion within the 
finding aid.  For instance, in <dsc>at <c03 level=item) MODS elements
would fit audio recording 
items more clearly. 

While the upper elements in EAD serve a very significant purpose,
perhaps MODS can serve the 
lower elements a bit better. Is this possible without using METS as the
overall infrastructure and 
instead using EAD? 

Is there a wrapper in EAD where I can describe certain features in a
MODS format? Is there a 
crosswalk between MODS and EAD? 

I realize these questions may be futile given relatedencoding=MARC21 may
perhaps solve this 
problem, but I can't help but ask anyway just out of sheer curiosity.
Has anyone else thought of 
combining the two for describing sub-components in EAD? 

Does this proposition seem futile or ridiculous to well-versed EAD users
and/or MODS users? 

Thanks for any advice and thoughts. 

Farris Wahbeh 
Archive Manager 
Creative Audio Archive