Why it was defined as restricted to external related material, I never understood. I always took it to be an oversight on the part of the authors of the tag library.
//upsets the apple cart and leaves//
Hi Jane and others
EAD3 has a solution for this, I believe, with the new <relations> element. The tag library says:
“relationships with other resources such as archival collections…may be expressed using a <relation> element with the @relationtype attribute set to ‘resourcerelation’..”
I don’t know if this is intended for internal references as well as others but I don’t see why not.
I would think that this is a much more dynamic way of linking to related material than via <relatedmaterial>.
Of course, this may not be an answer right now until we’re all upgraded to EAD3 but it’s worth bearing in mind.
University of Strathclyde
101 St James' Road, Glasgow G4 0NS
Tel: 0141 548 5825
Fax: 0141 552 3304
University of Strathclyde Archives and Special Collections website strath.ac.uk/archives
Follow us on Twitter @StrathArchives
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body registered in Scotland, no SCO 15263
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Michael Rush
Sent: 16 December 2013 15:01
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.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Jane Stevenson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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.
The Archives Hub
Mimas, The University of Manchester
Devonshire House, Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9QH
email:[log in to unmask]
tel: 0161 275 6055