For Richard Rinehart's questions about tagging object type and
media, I have been counting on even the current EAD accomodating
item-level genre and physical description.  Since it looks like the <DID>
elements can't contain any of the Phrase-level ACCESS elements, maybe
something to fix not just for GENREFORM? Janice and Mary realized that
<UNITTITLE> can't contain things like <PERSNAME>.

        (I don't recall trying to exclude these access elements from the
DID elements; seems to be result of how the phrase-level elements worked
out?  Just set me straight if I've mis-remembered.  I don't know that I'd
always tag as specifically as some of the following examples show, but
don't remember trying to prevent others from doing so.)

Here's what I'd imagined would work:

A basic approach, comparable to a FULL MARC 300 field, that could be
"labeled" as "Physical description."  (Sometimes, only say "15 photographs")

<EXTENT> 1 print (poster) on wove paper : color lithograph ; 80 cm x 30 cm

A heavier content designation, to flag the object and media types by
adding the <GENRE> element as desired; like tagging a <PERSNAME> within a

<EXTENT> 1 <GENRE...>print </GENRE...><GENRE...>(poster)</GENRE...> : color
<GENRE...>lithograph</GENRE...> ; 80 cm x 30 cm </EXTENT>

Alternative approach:

<UNITTITLE> Uncle Same Wants You
<UNITDATE> 1916?
<EXTENT> 1 print : color lithograph ; 80cm x 30cm </EXTENT>

Last thought, to be sure I understood: Your message suggests that one EAD
element would be adequate starting point?   (Looking at the categories for
description of works of art, there are a lot more 'elements' (e.g.,
Facture;  Measurements--dimensions, extent, shape, scale; Materials--role,
name, color).

Helena Zinkham                          phone: (202) 707-2922
Prints & Photographs Div.               fax: (202) 707-6647
Library of Congress                     email:  [log in to unmask]
Washington, DC  20540-4840

On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Richard Rinehart wrote:

> Hello,
> We're using the EAD to mark up a finding aid to a conceptual art archive
> (the Theresa Cha Archive) which includes text-based materials, but also
> actual works (as opposed to documentation) in many other media (film,
> video, audio, photography, assemblage, etc). For the EAD to be useful to
> museums and other non-text collections (we're a museum and film archive for
> instance) I think there will need to be a slightly more detailed way to
> encode media and physical information on a per-item basis. Daniel tells me
> that the ControlAccess/GenreForm is meant as a heading, and not really for
> physical description on the item level. The reasons it would be useful are
> twofold (at least what I can think of now):
> 1. I know the EAD is about intellectual access to collections, and not
> necessarily meant to be a collections management tool, but in a museum or
> art historical context, physical/media info is not just for conservation or
> collection management purposes. It's not incidental to the subject or
> meaning of the archive and it's parts; it's inextricable from them.
> 2. It seems to be the only real block to being able to use the EAD for
> complete collection descriptions. Again, many may not want to use it this
> way, and will link Finding Aids (on the item level) to their robust MARC
> catalogs, but many institutions outside the Library world (again museums)
> may not have any kind of item-level catalog that would support provision of
> item-level/physical info along with a finding aid. The EAD (or even
> collection of EAD's) may not be a substitute for a good collection
> management system, but it already provides for enough detail about objects
> to serve as a useful stand-alone when that is the only option. Again,
> complications of real-world application and adoption in a variety of
> communities should not necessarily drive the EAD standard (or hinder it:),
> it's more of a supporting reason to no.1.
> The physical description would have to allow for detail, but not
> necessarily include ALL the necessary details. It could work much like
> GenreForm allowing one to decide, based on media-type/physical properties,
> which authority to use (AAT, MIM, etc) and fill in the apppropriate terms.
> So, the DTD would not have to include all the media terms of AAT as
> elements or attributes, but allow the source and term to be named. This
> would not only make it feasible, but would seem to allow for future growth
> as new authorities and vocabularies emerge (cataloging rules for multimedia
> content, descriptive terms for digital art, etc).
> I must say the EAD even in alpha looks like a very useful tool for
> collections access. I just wanted to bring this topic up to this group
> before the next EAD meeting. Please let me know if I'm overlooking
> something that's already there, or if my understanding is just way off.
> Thanks,
> Richard Rinehart              | University Art Museum / Pacific Film Archive
> Systems Manager & Education   | University of California at Berkeley
> Technology Specialist         | 2625 Durant, Berkeley, CA 94720-2250
> [log in to unmask] |