Print

Print


There are some very thoughtful ideas expressed in these recommendations.
 Let me comment on a few.

<add>  I would support making the elements enumerated below that are now
found only within <add> available anywhere within <archdesc> or <c>.  I
am undercertain whether it would be preferable to make them all these
elements individually available or simply to make <add> and therefore
its components, available.   If we do the later, do we continue to need
<add> itself as a wrapper?

<scopecontent> within <did>  Without knowing the particular impetus for
this proposal, I would say that it brings back previous discussions
about what <did> is and whether or not it should include an element that
would provide some form of scope note.  The rationale for such a
proposal has been that while a lengthy scope note is often prepared,
sometimes running to multiple pages, one would like to be able to
include a brief (one or two sentence) abstract near the beginning of the
inventory as well.  The <did> was originally conceived as the primary
information needed to identify the collection.  It also may be thought
of, in a slightly different way, as an overview of the collection.   As
such it would be a logical place for a brief abstract.   Whatever the
merits of <did>, and I do have mixed feelings about it as a wrapper, I
do believe that we should define another element, <abstract>, that will
serve the purpose I describe above.  It would be available within <did>,
<scopecontent>, and <bioghist>.   In the latter two, it could serve the
same function that MARC $a does in the 520 and 545 fields.   That is, it
would serve to mark out a brief abstract at the beginning of a lengthier
note which might be processed in a different way, e.g. extracted for a
printed guide.

Michael Fox

Would that satisfy the needs of the Bodleian?

>----------
>From:  Meg Sweet[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Wednesday, August 13, 1997 11:54 AM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list EAD
>Subject:       EAD Beta version comments
>
>1) Public Record Office Comments
>   -----------------------------
>
>element:  <add> Adjunct to the Descriptive Data
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>The PRO needs <add> (and all the elements it can contain) to be available
>at all component levels.
>
>The PRO employs seven levels of hierarchy in its archival description,
>from whole government department(s) at the top to the individual
>documents at the bottom. The scale and complexity of government record
>creation and custodial history make it essential that such elements as
><relatedmaterial>, <separatedmaterial> etc, be available at all levels.
>
>Eg  The Pro describes individual series, or classes, at <CO2> level.
>More often than not such elements as <bibliography> are needed to provide
>references to works based on the series; <fileplan> to describe the
>creating body's original registry scheme; <relatedmaterial> to point to
>other closely related series; <separatedmaterial> to point to material
>that was organically part of the orignal series but that has, for
>whatever reason, been physically removed.
>
>
>Suggested new element:  <unpubfindaid>  Unpublished Finding Aids
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>It is proposed that this new element be available within <add> at all
>levels to contain references to other, unpublished, finding aids to the
>material being described.  Such finding aids will usually be in the form
>of card indexes or manuscript/typewritten/word-processed notes.
>
>
>Remarks:
>
>The <unpubfindaid> element may contain a simple list structure or a
>series of paragraph elements relating to unpublished finding aids about
>the material being described.
>
>May occur within:  <add>
>
>May contain: <chronlist>, <head>, <list>, <note>, <p>, <table>, <title>.
>
>
>
>
>2) Suggestions made at EAD Users Day at the PRO on 12 May 1997
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>There were 37 archivists from 12 different UK archive repositories
>present.  No doubt comments are being sent directly by the individual
>institutions but here follows a summary of those suggestions made which
>were not about particular authoring or publishing software:
>
>elements:  <index> and <controlaccess>
>--------------------------------------
>A representative from the Bodleian Library, Oxford, requested that these
>2 elements be standardised.
>
>
>element:  <altformavail>
>------------------------
>Durham University requested a suitable attribute to indicate type.
>
>
>element: <physdesc>
>-------------------
>Durham University requested a <p> element to be contained within
><physdesc>.
>
>
>element:  <scopecontent>
>------------------------
>A representative from Bodleian Library, Oxford, wanted <scopecontent> to
>be contained within <did>.
>______________________________________________________________________
>Meg Sweet                       E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>PRO Guide Editor                Tel:    00 44 181 876 3444 ext 2366
>Information and Records Dept    GTN:    3851 2366
>Public Record Office            Fax:    00 44 181 878 8905
>Kew
>Surrey  TW9 4DU
>UNITED KINGDOM
>
>        WWW:    http://www.open.gov.uk/pro/prohome.htm
>______________________________________________________________________
>