Print

Print


<origination> is the semantically correct element to use, so I'd go with that.

You don't mention what the end use of this data is, but in cases where the entire collection (or a huge proportion of it) has the same creator, it might be possible for the c0#s in the inventory section to inherit the creator from up above in archdesc/did/origination.  Then you would only have to include an <origination> for c0#s where the creator differs, and have it override the inherited one.  Depends on how the EAD is being processed / used / massaged / whatever.  Inheritance is a powerful component of XML; it would be nice to take advantage of it and would save a lot of coding effort.

Michele

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jaime Margalotti
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 11:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Use of <origination> in <did>

Hi Folks,

We've been trying to set up our EAD finding aids so that they can easily map to Dublin Core for the sake of our digital projects.  We've been able to map collection-level elements with no problem, but I'm having some issues at the item level.  The materials in this case are digitized oral history interviews. 

For mapping purposes, I need to somehow indicate the creator at the item level.  It appears that it is valid to include <origination label="Creator"> in the <did>.  Is anybody actually doing this?  If not, do you have another solution?  Any suggestions would be appreciated.  
Currently the creator of each item is just part of the <unittitle> and not tagged in any additional way.

Thank you,
Jaime

-- 

Jaime L. Margalotti
Senior Assistant Librarian
Special Collections Department University of Delaware Library Newark, DE  19717-5267
302-831-0554
[log in to unmask]