Print

Print


I, on the other hand, would prefer to avoid using enumerated <c>s.
The numbers (<c1> <c2>) should not be used to indicate at what level
an entity is imbedded in a hierarchy since there may be multiple
hierarchies within a given finding aid.  For example, in one series
there may be subseries, sub-subseries, folders, and items, where
items (in the enumerated version) would be <c5>, if the series itself
is a <c1>.   In another series, there may be only subseries, folders
and items, and the items would be <c4>.

So, the level of <c> doesn't tell us much about where something is,
across hierarchies, only within hierarchies.  The numbered <c>s are a
handy aid to the marker-upper in that they indicate which <c> you're
actually in.  But other than that, I find them misleading and prefer
to use the recursive model.  The recursive model still places each
<c> within the hierarchical context of the <c>s above and below it.
It just doesn't lead one to believe all <c4>s are equal.
-Kim Brookes
Radcliffe College
[log in to unmask]

>>> Steven Mandeville-Gamble <[log in to unmask]> -
4/15/96 11:46 AM >>>
>snip....
>I would prefer to tag folders/items/volumes as entities subordinate
to another in an unambiguous way, along the lines of the example
below.
<C1> Series
   <C2> Subseries
        <C3> Box 1
           <C4>Folder 1
           <C4>Folder 2
                .
           <C4> etc.
        <C3> Box 2
           <C4>Folder 1
           <C4>Folder 2
             .
           <C4> etc.
This way, regardless of how the information is displayed, the
hierarchical relationship remains unambiguous.