While I agree in archival arrangement theory that a sub-subseries is really just another form of subseries, Nathan and I must have had the same instructor (!) because we encode it as:  

<!-- use this format if you have series, subseries and sub-subseries -->
<c01 level="series">
<did><unitid>Series #: </unitid><unittitle>Series Title<unitdate></unitdate></unittitle>

<arrangement><p>The series is arranged as # subseries:</p> 
<item>unitid #: Subseries Title, date</item> 
<item>unitid #: Subseries Title, date</item>
<item>unitid #: Subseries Title, date</item>

<c02 level="subseries"><did><unitid>#: </unitid>
<unittitle>Subseries Title<unitdate></unitdate></unittitle></did>
<c03 level="otherlevel" otherlevel="subsubseries"> 
<did><unitid>#: </unitid>
<unittitle>Subsubseries Title<unitdate></unitdate></unittitle> 

<container type="box"></container>
<container type="folder"></container>
<unittitle>Folder Title<unitdate></unitdate></unittitle>

Maybe this just means that both are acceptable? Or perhaps it affects the way it displays in various stylesheets. 

Barbara D. Aikens 
Chief, Collections Processing
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
Ph: 202-633-7941
email:  [log in to unmask] 
Mailing Address
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
PO Box 37012
Victor Bldg., Suite 2200, MRC 937
Washington, DC  20013-7012 

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Rush
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 1:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sub-subseries


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.


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]
>> >