Oops, misspelled that, sorry (must be early Monday morning).  Type=”constituent”.





From: Jody DeRidder [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Deridder, Jody L
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:03 AM
To: 'Encoded Archival Description List'
Subject: RE: EAD and MODS crosswalks?


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.




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