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.
Hi Victoria –
I’m curious what you mean by “much more dynamic” – could you elaborate a little bit?
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
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
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