Well, the numbers mean something in the sense that it’s easy to see at a glance how far down in the intellectual hierarchy a given c0# is – a c03 is 3 levels down – and you know that a given c03 will be intellectually (and XML-ly) a child of the first c02 encountered above it. Of course one can do the same thing by counting ancestral c0’s, but that requires a lot more thinking. I guess in the end it depends on whether you’re likely to have human eyes looking at the EAD at some point. If so, the numbers are a nice human-readable cue. If not, then as several people have said, it doesn’t really matter because computers don’t care, so as long as you a) do it consistently and b) write, or choose, your output handling (XSLT or whatever) to deal correctly with whatever option you choose to go with, you’ll be good.
My personal preference is to include the human-readable cues because you never know when the automagic processing will crap out on you and you’ll need a human being to fix it ;) Also, if you go with unnumbered, doesn’t that mean you have to set the level attribute for every single <c>?
Either way, I wonder how often Nathan’s situation of needing to promote/demote c0#s comes up? Seems like it would be a fairly rare occurrence. We’ve created or converted about 2000 finding aids so far and I can only think of one occasion when I had to do it.
I think a problem lies in the perception
that the numbers in components have some sort of "meaning." A
c01 can be a series or an item. It is semantically incorrect to place
emphasis on the numbering system at all. Suppose you were to process your
collection into two outputs for comparison. For the first dataset, you
strip out all the level attributes and only have numbered components. For
the second dataset, you replace all the numbered components with unnumbered
<c>, but retain the level attributes. Clearly the second dataset
retains intellectual meaning.
I can kind of see how <c level="series"> may be a little more difficult to read than <c01 level="series"> if you are using a simple text editor like NoteTab, but it seems like renumbering a collection is a nightmarish scenario. It seems as if there are not many institutions that use unnumbered components. The EAD cookbook stylesheets don't work out of the box on a collection with unnumbered components, I think. It assumes top level components are c01 and that template calls c02. Any sort of machine processing is greatly simplified by getting rid of numbered components, and I think the community is trending towards using software applications to create EAD rather than a slew of workflows in which guides are manually made in NoteTab Pro or other such text editors.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Jordon Steele <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
We do <c>. Archivist Toolkit’s default output is <c>, not numbered components (although there is an option).
The main problem for me is not technological at all—it’s really hard for a human being to read the code if you don’t have cues like <c01>, <c02>, etc. Otherwise, it works fine. When our tech guy was creating our stylesheet, I asked him if having non-numbered components was an issue, and he said that it was not. I believe, like you indicate, he just wrote the XSLT with the level attributes to differentiate.
Biddle Law Library
Penn Law School
3460 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3406
This could be different from what is under discussion here, but I've
seen "false levels" at multiple institutions while cleaning up batches
of EADs. As far as I can tell, the main reason component padding has
been done historically is for display purposes. Some processors in the
past may not have understoond CSS or didn't have access to the finding
aid CSS files.
For us, it was not a matter of CSS padding, it was problems that occurred during XSL transformation. The XSLT we were using was a tweaked EAD cookbook stylesheet that couldn't handle a collection that had series with sub-series and series without sub-series. For example, we were working with many collections intellectually structured like:
c01 Series: Vessel Papers
c02 Sub-Series: M/V "O.K. Service X"
c03 File: Manifests
c03 File: Captain's Logs
c01 Series: Financial Records
c02 File: General Ledger
c02 File: Annual Reports
As I understood the problem, the XSLT we were using was not testing individual components to see if the attribute was series, sub-series, file, etc. It thought all c02s were sub-series and would not correctly transform c02s that were files. That might be a simple fix, but it was beyond our XSLT knowledge. In the absence of a dedicated XSLT person to write the XSL test for us, we added "false" c02 layers to our series that did not contain sub-series so all files would be encoded as c03s. We then uploaded static HTML files into the university's content management system, which controlled all the CSS.
It was less than ideal, but it got the job done. I am especially interested in Ethan's comment about just using <c> and @level. Is anyone else doing this?