 |
 |
Dear colleagues, thank you very much to everyone who provided their feedback and input to the question of using <objectxmlwrap> as a potential alternative to <did> and its siblings within <c> (or numbered <c01> to <c12>) in EAD3: https://github.com/SAA-SDT/EAD3/issues/517. The EAD team of TS-EAS will review this issue again during their next meeting on Tuesday, 3 March. So, while the initial deadline for feedback has passed, please feel free to add any further thoughts - or maybe even use cases and encoding examples - to the issue by *latest Friday, 28 February*, for them to be considered in our conversation. Thank you very much in advance, Kerstin (EAD team lead with TS-EAS) Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 17:42 Uhr schrieb Kerstin Arnold < [log in to unmask]>: > Dear colleagues, > > the EAD team of TS-EAS (Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival > Standards) is looking for community feedback on a suggested addition to > EAD3 (see all details of the original proposal and the conversation so far > on GitHub - https://github.com/SAA-SDT/EAD3/issues/517). > > To ensure that the standards under TS-EAS' purview continue to be based on > user needs, we are specifically interested in any use cases from your > institutions, which would support this change request. > > We'd appreciate any feedback and examples to be posted to the GitHub issue > cited above or sent via email to [log in to unmask] by end > of play on *Friday, 31 January 2020.* > > Thank you very much in advance, > Kerstin > (EAD team lead with TS-EAS) > > > -----Further details of interest----- > Summary > > Suggestion to add <objectxmlwrap> as an alternative to <did> and its > siblings within <c> (or numbered <c01> to <c12>) > Intended new feature > > Enable the integration of descriptive metadata from other namespaces (e.g. > MARC, VRACode, NUDS, etc.), especially when describing single items of > other domains, which are part of archival collections > Options discussed so far > > - Giving a choice between either <c><did> or <c><objectxmlwrap> to > provide identifying descriptive information of a resource > - This would be the result of the original suggestion. > - The concern was raised that this would undermine even a minimal > level of predictability for metadata exchange, given that EAD already is at > the bare minimum of required data. > - This change would likely constitute a MAJOR REVISION and might > hence be put on hold until the next major revision of EAD3 > - Using the currently available model of <c><did> alongside > <c><relations> and make use of the <objectxmlwrap> element within > <relation> > - The question was raised whether establishing a “sameAs” > relationship in this context would be conceptually sound. > - This approach would not REQUIRE ANY CHANGES TO THE SCHEMA > - Adding <objectxmlwrap> as direct, optional sub-element of <did> > - This suggestion went along with the precondition to still require > at least one other sub-element within <did> (i.e. one element of the m.did > group) > - This change would likely constitute a MINOR REVISION and could > hence be dealt with in the context of the current annual cycle. > >