Print

Print


Leslie's note restates my earlier remarks about the conflicts in the use
of <did>, between it's defined role as idnetifying information and it's
potential tole as a summary overview.   At least one of the digital
projects has been using the did <note>  as a sort of abstract- a concept
that the development team consciously chose not to include.

As I said,  thinl we need to do two things here- define an <abstract>
element and rethink the <did>'s role.

For my part, I like the summary concept with an abstract included. This
would provide a sharper and more useful defintion, distinguish between
short (one sentence or so) content notes that appear in container lists
and longer, full-fledged scope notes, would mean for the most part that
<did> would serve as the level wrapper within <c> that has been
proposed, and might reduce tagging.

Michael Fox

>----------
>From:  Leslie A. Morris[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Thursday, August 14, 1997 3:37 PM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list EAD
>Subject:       Re: <scopecontent> within <did>
>
>Bill Landis makes a useful point about what the <did> is, and it did make
>me go back and re-read some of the tag definitions again (which I seem to
>be doing a lot of recently!).
>
>My reason for putting <note>, and wanting to put <scopecontent>, inside
>the <did> is that it does seem to be information unique to that unit.  And
>looking at the definition of <note>, it says it "provides additional
>information about the material described."  <scopecontent> _summarizes_
>information about the material being described, implying that all that
>information is specified. So, as I read those two definitions, I seem to
>be right that statements such as "Includes photographs and clippings"
>belong properly in <note> and part of <did> since it is information unique
>to the unit.
>
>However, reading again the definition of <did> as "identifying fundamental
>descriptive information need to identify the component" then I'd have to
>say that neither <note> or <scopecontent> should be inside <did> because
>it's not "fundamental" (or it wouldn't be in a note).
>
>I seem to see a slight contradiction in the DTD here, about what is
>"fundamental" and what isn't.  And perhaps more discussion will clarify
>what the real purpose, in SGML terms, is of the <did>, and whether we can
>do without it (in part) as Kris Kiesling has suggested.
>
>Leslie Morris
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Bill Landis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Leslie A. Morris wrote:
>>
>> > <c><did><unitid>(1)</unitid><unititle><persname>James, Henry.
>> > </persname>Letters to <persname>Florence Pertz,
>> >
>>>/persname><unitdate>1900-1909</unitdate></unittitle><scopecontent><p>Includ
>>es
>> > newspaper clipping and photograph.</p></scopecontent></did></c>
>> >
>> > Intellectually, the info in the <scopecontent> above is part of the
>><did>,
>> > but is not now valid there.  We have, instead, been using the generic
>> > <note>, which *is* valid within <did>.  I personally am happy using
>> > "note", but can see why some might prefer the more specific
>> > <scopecontent>.
>>
>> I'm not so sure I agree with Leslie Morris that the info. bundled by the
>> <did> and the <scopecontent> in the example above are the same.  One
>> assumes that the information in the <did><unittitle> is identifying
>> information unique to this particular file or whatever level attribute is
>> set on the <c> tag, in other words--the info. that distinguishes it from
>> all the other <c><did><unittitle> combinations in this finding aid.  The
>> information in the <scopecontent> is not of a uniquely identifying nature,
>> but just describes what kinds of items (besides the letters) are also in
>> this particular file.  The <scopecontent> is currently available for use
>> in the <c> (right after the </did> is where were using it), I'm not sure
>> why it is necessary to move it into the <did>?  Is it critical for some
>> reason that the <scopecontent> information listed above be inside the
>> <did>?
>>
>> ** ______Bill Landis_|_JSTOR Production [log in to unmask]
>> ** "I go out walking I will - Head out walking I will -   |313 936.2363
>> ** Go out walking through the middle of midnight -        |fax 647.6897
>> ** With a burning inside - And there's nothing they can throw -
>> ** Nothing they can throw me that I can't throw back -
>> ** Or at least know where to hide"___|_Connie Kaldor_|_I Go Out Walking
>>
>
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>Leslie A. Morris
>Curator of Manuscripts in the Harvard College Library
>Houghton Library, Harvard University
>Cambridge, MA 02138
>
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>phone:  617.495.2449
>fax:    617.495.1376
>http://hcl.harvard.edu/houghton/mss/
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>