Print

Print


While not wishing to get into a prolonged discussion about the future of
archival description that manages relationships in a more efficient and
sophisticated manner, which I fully support, I believe that much more work
needs to be done to get us there.  We need to articulate how such a
descriptive environment would work, develop systems that support a more
relational model, create formal ontologies that express such relationships,
articulate how this model might replace/overlay/supplement what we have
done with EAD for the past 17 years, and finally to promote this very
different approach to archival description and explain to the community why
we should expend the resources required to make this shift.

It is my opinion that all this can and should and will be done but that we
are not there yet. This is why the <relation> element in EAD3 is being
characterized as "experimental" and not part of the "base" EAD3 schema.

As a technical matter, citing the availability of the attributes @role,
@href  and @relationtype  as reasons why <relation> would be more powerful
than <relatedmaterial> for creating links to other resources is an
overstatement.

An example earlier in this thread uses a <ref> element within
<relatedmaterial> as a way to create a link to related material.  <ref>
already contains both the @role and @href and I would argue that "related
materials" is a more informative expression of the relationship involved
than relationtype="resourcerelation."

Documenting relationships is the right way to go, but much more work will
be required to get us there.  Some of it is already underway.  I challenge
the descriptive community to pay attention, get involved, and contribute to
the process.

Michael Fox




On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Victoria Peters <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Hi Michele
>
>
>
> Well, first of all, if I’ve understood EAD3 right, <relations> gives you a
> few more options to specify the relation than <relatedmaterial> eg it has
> @arcrole, @relationtype and @href which <relatedmaterial> does not.
>
>
>
> Also, as a general principle (I’m coming at it from an EAC-CPF
> perspective), I think it’s better to record any links with related
> resources as well as corporate bodies, persons and families or functions
> outside the main body of the archive description. Doing this gives you the
> potential at least to develop more dynamic descriptive systems in the
> future. As already mentioned, <relatedmaterial> is a representation of an
> element in ISAD(G).  And ISAD(G) was created some time ago now and designed
> to fit all the elements of description in a single representation. Things
> have, of course, moved on since then and we now have ISAAR(CPF) and EAC-CPF
> and ISDF and hopefully EAC-F too soon. These developments have given us the
> potential to begin to develop more dynamic descriptive systems made up of
> separate but linked descriptions. Of course, if you want, you can continue
> to create a single all-in-one representation based only on ISAD(G) and if
> that’s your aim then you can use <relatedmaterial> for links to related
> resources. But if you want to pave the way for a more dynamic descriptive
> system, then <relations> is the way to go.
>
>
>
> Victoria
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Michele R Combs
> *Sent:* 16 December 2013 19:32
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Question about <relatedmaterial>
>
>
>
> Hi Victoria –
>
>
>
> I’m curious what you mean by “much more dynamic” – could you elaborate a
> little bit?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
> *From:* Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>]
> *On Behalf Of *Victoria Peters
> *Sent:* Monday, December 16, 2013 11:00 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: 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]<[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
>
>
>



-- 
Michael