Mike,

I hear you.  But, I don't think I explained my self very well.

The way I was taught, you don't specify the otherlevel attribute when using level="otherlevel", it just left at that.  No mater where it is in the hierarchy.

For example:

<co1 level="series>....

<co2 level="subseries>....

<c03 level="otherlevel">...

or 

<co1 level="series>....

<co2 level="subseries>....

<c03 level="otherlevel">...

<c04 level="otherlevel">....  

In other words, the placement within the hierarchy is indicated by the numbered component, not the otherlevel attribute.  So, no extra encoding work.  I know that not everyone uses numbered components, so it might not work for all.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to make sure I am encoding things correctly!

Gmail is telling me that Barbara has an update, let me see what she says...  Ah, I see she uses the otherlevel attribute.  Perhaps I should start using it...  I agree with Barbara that both are probably acceptable, as long as you know the affect on your stylesheets.  EAD was designed to be flexible after all.

So here's my follow up question:  If I'm using level="otherlevel", should I also be using the otherlevel attribute and not relying on numbered components?

Thanks!

Nathan

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Michael Rush <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Nathan,

That level of specificity in the level attribute adds too much
complexity to the markup.  What is a sub-subseries if it isn't a <c
level="subseries"> within a <c level="subseries">?  By encoding <c
level="otherlevel" otherlevel="sub-subseries"> you use two attributes
where you could use one and don't gain any semantic meaning.  What if
you have a third subseries?  Do you encode <c level="otherlevel"
otherlevel="sub-sub-subseries">?  Where does it end?

Encoding <c level="otherlevel" otherlevel="sub-subseries"> creates two
thing - more encoding work and the need for a more complicated
stylesheet - neither of which I like.  Since I can't see what you gain
by it, I argue for sticking with @level="subseries".

This is not to say there aren't times to use @otherlevel - we often
use @otherlevel="accession" - I just don't think there's any reason to
specify sub-sub-sub-sub-subseries when you can easily identify them as
such given the encoding context.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Nathan Tallman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mike,
> When I was trained on EAD, I was instructed to use level="otherlevel" for
> sub-subseries.  May I ask why you don't recommend this approach?
> Thanks!
> Nathan
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Michael Rush <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Christine,
>>
>> I don't recommend that approach.  I when I have sub-subseries, I just
>> encode them with level="subseries".  Keep it simple, as always.  If
>> for some reason you need to identify the actual sub-subseries - in a
>> stylesheet for example - it's a simple xpath: *[@level='subseries' and
>> parent::*[@level='subseries']].
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:53 AM, De Catanzaro, Christine D
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > This is hopefully a rather straightforward question for the list: For a
>> > collection with sub-subseries, when entering the level, would the correct
>> > attribute for level be "otherlevel" and then to specify the level would it
>> > be "sub-subseries" (with the hyphen)?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Christine
>> >
>> > --
>> > Christine D. de Catanzaro, Ph.D., M.L.I.S.
>> > Access Archivist
>> > Subject Librarian - Music
>> >
>> > Georgia Tech Archives
>> > Library and Information Center
>> > 704 Cherry Street
>> > Atlanta, GA 30332-0900
>> >
>> > Phone: 404-385-0107
>> > Fax: 404-894-9421
>> >
>> > E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> >
>
>