 |
 |
Hi Brian, We are thinking both about collection-level and sub-componenet level. I feel that within the <c> tag the <dao> is still more suitably placed in the main <archdesc>, but certainly at collection-level the argument for this seems to be stronger. Many thanks, Jane. > -----Original Message----- > From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Brian Sheppard > Sent: 28 January 2008 18:13 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Use of <dao> in <did> > > Jane, the cases I've seen at Wisconsin mostly have daos at > the c0x level, following the did. But it sounds like you may > be providing a single collection-level link. In that case, I > think you're right that it should fall beneath the archdesc > or perhaps archdesc/scopecontent. > > -Brian > > On January 28, at 10:38 AM, Jane E. Stevenson wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > We are currently developing the means to add images to the Archives > > Hub > > (http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk) by using the <dao> tag. > > > > I am curious as to why all of the examples that I have > seen, including > > the examples in the Tag Library, put the <dao> into the > <did> area. As > > the <did> is for core, summary information about the > archive, I would > > have thought that the <dao> element for images of the > archives would > > more rightly reside outside of this within the main <archdesc>, > > especially for digital surrogates of paper-based archives. > > > > Do most people put the <dao> within the <did> and if so, why is it > > seen as core information? > > > > Any thoughts would be appreciated! > > > > cheers, > > Jane. > > > > Jane Stevenson > > The Archives Hub > > Mimas > > University of Manchester > > -------------------------------------------------- > Brian Sheppard > University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center > [log in to unmask] (608) 262-3349 > >