Print

Print


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.
>
>