 |
 |
Hello all, In upgrading some EAD documents from the DTD to the newly-released W3C Schema, we've run across an interesting inconsistency. We've been using the role attribute on some of the controlaccess subelements. For several of these (e.g., persname), role is defined in the tag library as "The ROLE attribute can be used to specify the relationship(s) of the name to the materials being described..." And that's how we used it for those elements. We *also* used this attribute on the title element (within controlaccess) for the same purpose, although I see now the tag library doesn't contain the same definition under title as the others did. In the W3C Schema, the role attribute on persname, etc., is still valid, but for title, it's now xlink:role, which has an ENTIRELY different meaning. So does this mean role actually meant something for title than persname in the DTD too? That in the DTD version of EAD attributes with the very same name could mean two different things, and one had to rely on reading the DTD itself (aaaaa!) or gleaning indirect implications from the tag library in order to know which was intended? That's enough ranting: down to my real question. I know EAD isn't in active development, but if role (in the first meaning) is important enough to include on *some* of the subelements of controlaccess, shouldn't it be included on *all* of them? Now that the two meanings are represented by attributes from different namespace in the Schema, we could add them both to the same element, rather than having to pick between them as the DTD required when they had the same name. Are there any plans at all to make changes like this to EAD in the future? Thanks, Jenn ======================== Jenn Riley Metadata Librarian Digital Library Program Indiana University - Bloomington Wells Library W501 (812) 856-5759 www.dlib.indiana.edu Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com