Wouldn’t subcomponents fall under
<mods:relatedItem type=”constitutent”>?
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.
--jody
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
<eadheader>.
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
www.creativeaudioarchive.org