This has come up for me a few times.  As my antipathy for <note> is well
documented, I have always advocated for using <relatedmaterial> for
internal references. I will ask the tag library editorial team to consider
revising the element definition to make it more accommodating of the
ISAD(G) usage.


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Jane Stevenson <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi there,
> I'm just wanting to advise an archivist who wants to refer to related
> material that is within the same collection.
> The <relatedmaterial> tag is NOT for materials related by provenance.
> However, it is comparable to ISAD(G) 3.5.3
> ISAD(G) 3.5.3 is for "information about units of description in the same
> repository or elsewhere that ARE related by provenance or other
> association(s)
> Has anyone come up against this issue before?
> I know <separatedmaterial> is for materials related by provenance, but
> it's for materials that have been separated from the described materials.
> In this case there is no separation - it's all one collection, but the
> cataloguer wants to point researchers to related items within the
> collection.
> cheers,
> Jane
> Jane Stevenson
> The Archives Hub
> Mimas, The University of Manchester
> Devonshire House, Oxford Road
> Manchester M13 9QH
> email:[log in to unmask]
> tel: 0161 275 6055
> website:
> blog:
> twitter: