Print

Print


I'm really not sure why the encoding was done that way.  My thought is that
they always wanted to maintain a structure of c01 - series, c02 - subseries
(even when there isn't one), and c03 - file.  A long-time employee will be
back on Monday and I'll ask her if she knows.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Michele R Combs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Nathan, do you know what was the rationale for including these “fake”
> c0#s ?  Was it in order to force all c0#s with level=”file” to fall as c03’s
> or something like that?    (My apologies if this has already been answered…)
>
>
>
> Re using plain c0’s rather than c0#s -- we use the numbered version because
> it’s easier to comprehend as we do the encoding.  If a human will never look
> at your data I don’t suppose it matters much.  In the level attribute, we
> chose for local practice to allow only “series” or “subseries” – we don’t
> use any of the other options.
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Nathan Tallman
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2010 2:35 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Promoting Container Levels
>
>
>
> The example you provide Barbara makes sense.  The c03s are sub-groupings of
> the c02.  At my last institution we used level="otherlevel" in these
> situations.  This isn't the situation I'm facing though.
>
>
>
> In the finding aids I'm working with, levels are being inserted that have
> no relation to intellectual arrangement.  For example, in the case of a
> series with files and no subseries, the encoding adds an extra layer of c02
> (sometimes given the level of subseries, sometimes no level attribute
> identified), with c03s at the file level.  In these cases the c02 has no
> information in the did (the files were originally EAD 1.0 before I converted
> them to 2002, where this is not allowed).  It seems the previous encoders
> always wrapped the file-level c0s with the preceding level, regardless if it
> was already in series or subseries.
>
>
>
> Ethan mentioned that he avoids numbering the <c> tags.  I haven't seen this
> before.  It makes sense to rely on the level attribute to identify
> the hierarchy level.  Is this a common practice?
>
>
>
> Nathan
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Aikens, Barbara <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I wouldn’t necessarily call the example provided as a “false level”.
> There are times when one needs what I refer to as a “folder grouping” and I
> believe it is an intellectual component level that also works well for
> display.
>
>
>
> For example, in plain text:
>
>
>
> c01:       Artists Files
>
>
>
>                 cO2        Abilgard, Mark
>
>             cO3     General, 1989-1998
>
>             cO3     Printed Material, 1989-1998, undated
>
> cO2     Abright, Bill, General, 1987-1999, undated
>
> cO2     Adams, Hank Murta
>
> cO3     Announcements and Press Releases, DW Gallery, 1985-1996
>
> cO3     Collector Records, 1993-1997, undated
>
> cO3     Consignment Records, 1991-1996
>
> cO3     Correspondence, 1981-1997 *(2 folders)*
>
> cO3     Loan Forms, 1996
>
> cO3     Printed Material, 1985-1997
>
> cO3     Shipping Records, 1989-1997, undated
>
> cO3     Photographs of Adams, undated
>
> cO3     Other Photographs, circa 1981-1995 *(3 folders)*
>
> cO2     Aebersold, Jane Ford, General, 1982 1
>
> cO2     Alexandrov, Simona, General, circa 1994-1996, undated 1
>
> cO2     Anderson, Daniel, General, 1987-1996
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Barbara D. Aikens
>
>
>
> Chief, Collections Processing
>
> Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
>
> aikensb @ si.edu
>
>
>
> 202-633-7941
>
> 202-633-7994 (fax)
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Ethan Gruber
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:21 AM
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Promoting Container Levels
>
>
>
> The way I see it, the important organizational information is contained in
> the @level attribute, so I avoid using numbered components at all.  Just
> using <c> and a @level avoids situations like this, I think.
>
> Ethan Gruber
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Mark Carlson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> This has been my experience as well.  I call it "Encoding For Display" or
> EFD for short (EAD's wicked cousin).  I've seen all kinds of weird things
> pass my eyelids just because someone wanted a particular display that the
> stylesheet hadn't (yet) been programmed to accommodate.  Little did they
> know that I was their yellow brick road to Oz and all they had to do was to
> click their heals together three times and say "There's no EFD, There's no
> EFD".
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Joyce Chapman wrote:
>
> 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. While processors may not know what CSS is, they can
> clearly see that they control indentation through component levels.
> Add a component level and you immediately see increased indentation in
> your rendered display. I think it's easy for processors not to
> understanding why this is a bad practice if they are new to
> technologies like EAD/CSS/HTML or if no one stressed the separation of
> encoding and display in their training.
>
> Joyce
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Fox, Michael <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> I just have to comment on an aspect of EAD that may or may not be implied
> in the original post, one that has nothing to do with the technical
> solutions suggested.
>
> To be very clear, the statement that
>
> My understanding correct EAD encoding:
>
>
>         * c1 - Series
>         * c2 - Subseries
>         * c3 - File
>
>     OR
>
>         * c1 - Series
>         * c2 - File
>
>
> is not literally correct.   There is no assumption in EAD that any level of
> component relates to any level of intellectual arrangement.  A <c01> might
> be a sub-collection, series, subseries, file or item.  The same principle
> applies to every component level.  The LEVEL attribute is available to make
> such designations if one wishes.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what a "false level" might be.   Sometimes I have
> seen individuals attempt to encode containers as component levels- a real no
> no.   But of course we do create levels of hierarchy within our arrangements
> that organize more than describe subordinate units of "real stuff."  As I
> understand, German archives actually have a term that describes such levels
> that is rendered by the value "class" for the attribute LEVEL.  It is short
> for classification or in German "Tektonik".  It is not classification in the
> sense of Dewey but rather refers to the structural elements of a hierarchy.
>
> Michael Fox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Mark Carlson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Promoting Container Levels
>
> That's true.  One needs to remember that component levels are nested and
> that valid EAD documents require <did> within component levels, so you
> can't just remove the false component level and expect it to work.
> Assuming that you are using the EAD DTD, this script appears to work
> (although I haven't tested it extensively).  Contact me offlist if you
> want to pursue trying it.  Mark
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
> xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
> xmlns:msxsl="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xslt">
> <xsl:output method="xml" doctype-public="+//ISBN 1-931666-00-8//DTD
> ead.dtd (Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Version 2002)//EN"
> doctype-system="ead.dtd" indent="yes"/>
> <xsl:template match="* | processing-instruction() | comment()">
> <xsl:copy>
> <xsl:copy-of select="@*"/>
> <xsl:apply-templates/>
> </xsl:copy>
> </xsl:template>
>
> <!-- Change this to match the <did> of the false level -->
> <xsl:template match="c03/did"/>
> <!-- Change this to match the component level of the false level -->
> <xsl:template match="c03">
> <!-- The following should match the component level of the line above -->
> <c03>
> <!-- This should match the next component level down from the one being
> matched above -->
> <xsl:copy-of select="descendant::c04/*"/>
> </c03>
> </xsl:template>
> </xsl:stylesheet>
>
> On 4/14/2010 7:37 AM, Nathan Tallman wrote:
>
> As far as I know, there isn't an easy way to do this.  But it never
> hurts to ask, right?
>
> Past encoding practices at my institution inserted a false c0 layer in
> EAD finding aids.  For example,
>
>
>     My understanding correct EAD encoding:
>
>         * c1 - Series
>         * c2 - Subseries
>         * c3 - File
>
>     OR
>
>         * c1 - Series
>         * c2 - File
>
>
>     Past practices at my institution:
>
>         * c1 - Series
>         * c2 - Subseries
>         * c3 - False layer to enclose files
>         * c4 - File
>
>     OR
>
>         * c1 - Series
>         * c2 - False layer
>         * c3 - File
>
>
> Other than hand-coding, is there a way to promote the c4s to c3s and
> eliminate the false level?  I haven't used Archivist Toolkit or many
> other collection management software packages that might have this
> functionality.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Nathan Tallman
> Associate Archivist
> American Jewish Archives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joyce Chapman
> NCSU Libraries
> Metadata and Cataloging/
> Digital Library Initiatives
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>