One thing to be careful about with these definitions is that the concept of "related materials" found in ISAD (G) and DACS concatenates the two different situations that EAD parses out into two separate elements: related materials and separated materials.
This is not to suggest that the definition of the related materials element might not be usefully expanded to include internal as well as external relations.
It's too late now but the next version of EAD might well bring them back together ad a single element though I suspect that EAD4 undoubtedly will have that
and much more to revise with respect to relationships of all sorts, as our understanding of a more relational approach to archival description matures.
But for the moment we simply need an expanded definition of what we have, recognizing how that differs from ISAD.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Michael Rush <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 12/16/2013 9:01 AM (GMT-06:00)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about <relatedmaterial>
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.