Print

Print


Who knows! But just because one doesn't have a use for this level of
detail now, doesn't mean that opportunities for re-use in the future
should be limited.

e.g. in 10 years your institution buys a new database system with
separate fields for these details, and wants to populate it from the
existing EAD...

As a software developer, I'd always advocate encoding as fine-grained as
resources permit; It's easy to develop tools that ignore, or strip out
excessive detail for a particular use-case, but parsing the data in
order to increase the level of detail requires a great deal more
sophistication.

All the best,
John

-- 
              '.    ,'.         John Harrison
             '  `  '  '         University of Liverpool
 c h e s h i r e  |  3          e: [log in to unmask]
                  v             w: www.cheshire3.org
              `-..;.'           t: 0151 7954271
                ..,     (c)     


On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:22 +0000, Fox, Michael wrote:
> Interesting theoretical discussion, but what exactly would one accomplish with all this content designation?
> 
> Michael Fox
> 
> 
> Michael Fox
> Deputy Director for Progams and Chief Operating Officer 
> Minnesota Historical Society
> 345 Kellogg Blvd West
> Saint Paul, MN  55102
> [log in to unmask]
> 651-259-3110
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maguire, Marsha
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:53 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: phys-what?
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> Admittedly, I'm cribbing here to some extent from AMIM (American Moving Image Materials) rules for physical description of video recordings, although AMIM would put more info in the <extent> element,  but how about something like:
> 
> <physdesc>
> <extent>1</extent> <genreform>videocassette<genreform>
> <physfacet>U-matic, sound, color</physfacet>  <dimensions>3/4 inch</dimensions>
> </physdesc>
> 
> Leave out "color" if the tape is black-and-white, of course! Just suggesting that sound and color characteristics are useful.
> 
> Duration is a problem in EAD. It's another way of stating extent in a way. Could <extent> be repeated after <genreform>?
> 
> <physdesc>
> <extent>1</extent> <genreform>videocassette<genreform> <extent>(60 minutes)</extent>
> <physfacet>U-matic, sound, color</physfacet>
> <dimensions>3/4-inch</dimensions>
> </physdesc>
> 
> Or the duration could follow the number of cassettes:
> 
> <physdesc>
> <extent>1 60-minute</extent> <genreform>videocassette<genreform>
> <physfacet>U-matic, sound, color</physfacet>
> <dimensions>3/4-inch</dimensions>
> </physdesc>
> 
> The tape width is important playback info, so I'd suggest including the dimensions element. The brand name of the tape, Scotch, might be more appropriate in a note, although you could precede "U-matic" with "Scotch." 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Marsha
> 
> Marsha Maguire
> Recorded Sound Cataloger
> Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division
> Library of Congress, Packard Campus
> Culpeper, VA 22701-7551
> email: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Opinions are my own.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Giovanni Michetti
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: phys-what?
> 
> Hi Michele,
> 
> here my comments:
> 
> 1. <physdesc><extent>1 Scotch Umatic UCA 60 tape</extent></physdesc>
> 
> It's not a proper solution, since <extent> should be used for quantity only.
> 
> 
> 2. <physdesc><genreform>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</genreform></physdesc>
> 
> I don't like it. I wouldn't consider "Scotch Umatic" a type of material
> -- I'd rather say it's a "videotape" from the <genreform> point of view. 
> In fact, looking at the examples in the Tag Library you'll find 'videotape', 'sound recording', 'drawing' etc.
> OK, I guess we may consider it as a sort of synecdoche, as we use 'mp3' 
> to generically mean a (compressed) 'sound recording', but it seems we need to 'stretch' things too much.
> Anyway, you may refine it adding <extent>:
> <physdesc><extent>1</extent><genreform>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</genreform></physdesc>
> 
> 
> 3. <phystech><p>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</p></phystech>
> 
> It seems a good option.
> Actually <phystech> "includes details of [their] physical composition or the need for particular hardware or software to preserve or access the materials" (Tag Library): so I'd note "Scotch Umatic" implies the need for a particular device but it's not per se information about that device. Anyway, I still think <phystech> is a good option.
> 
> 
> 4. <physdesc><physfacet type="format">Scotch Umatic UCA 60 videotape</physfacet></physdesc>
> 
> I don't like it: <physfacet> is about the "aspect of the appearance of the described materials". Of course "Umatic UCA 60" can be handled as 'appearance' but it doesn't seem the best option.
> 
> 
> 5. What about
> 
> <did>
> ...
> <physdesc><extent>1</extent><genreform>videotape</genreform></physdesc>
> ...
> </did>
> <phystech><p>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</p></phystech>
> 
> ?
> 
> Too redundant?
> 
> Giovanni Michetti
> University of Rome "La Sapienza"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Il 07/12/2010 17.43, Michele R Combs ha scritto:
> > What's the appropriate element combination to describe the specific type of audio or videorecording, e.g. Scotch Umatic UCA 60?
> > <physdesc><extent>1 Scotch Umatic UCA 60 tape</extent></physdesc> 
> > <physdesc><genreform>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</genreform></physdesc> 
> > <phystech><p>Scotch Umatic UCA 60</p></phystech> <physdesc><physfacet 
> > type="format">Scotch Umatic UCA 60 videotape</physfacet></physdesc> 
> > These all seem about equally right to me.  Thoughts?
> > Michele