We have always used <relatedmaterial> for related material within our own repository and between components of the same finding aid.

 

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.

 

If in EAD3 we use <relation> for holdings in the same repository, then by the same logic you would do away with <relatedmaterial> altogther.

 

//upsets the apple cart and leaves//

 

Kate

 

 

 


From: Encoded Archival Description List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Victoria Peters [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EAD] Question about <relatedmaterial>

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.

 

Victoria

Victoria Peters

University Archivist

University of Strathclyde

Andersonian Library

101 St James' Road, Glasgow G4 0NS

Tel: 0141 548 5825

Fax: 0141 552 3304

Email: [log in to unmask]

 

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>

 

Jane,

 

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.

 

Mike

 

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: archiveshub.ac.uk
blog: archiveshub.ac.uk/blog
twitter: twitter.com/archiveshub