From an EAD-encoding perspective, <unittitle> is not required, so simply
having a <unitdate> is sufficient.  This is also compliant with the DACS
guidelines for subsequent levels in a multilevel description.  In the
example of a corresondence series, the title "Correspondence" could inherit
to subordinate components with only <unitdate>s.

In your local context there may be stylesheet and best practice
considerations that require a <unittitle>.  This is the case a Yale, where
we require <unittitle> at each level of description, a decision that I
regret.  Were I to significantly revisit our encoding best practices and
stylesheets I would not require <unittitle> at component levels.


On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jaime Margalotti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> As someone who is firmly on the nested <unitdate> side, I have a question
> for the non-nesters.  How do you deal with situations where the date is the
> only title (such as: the series is "Correspondence" and each file is a date
> range?
> I did not think is was acceptable to leave the <unittitle> empty, so would
> you put the date in both places and use the stylesheet to sort out the
> redundancy?
> Thanks,
> Jaime
> On Mar 26, 2012, at 12:14 AM, Michael Rush <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I can't add much to Cory's thorough synopsis, but I do want to confirm
> that TS-EAD is considering how to clarify the use of <unitdate> in relation
> to <unittitle>.  It is premature to share any decisions, but I encourage
> anyone interested to look at the alpha version of the new EAD schema which
> we intend to release this summer.  At that point any changes regarding
> <unitdate> and <unittitle> will be present in the draft schema and in
> accompanying documentation and TS-EAD will be eager to receive feedback.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mike Rush
> > TS-EAD co-chair
> >
> >