Print

Print


Michael, thanks for your observations.  I like the "original file unit"
suggestion.  FYI, since posting my earlier message I've learned that the
UC-EAD project is using a "quick and dirty" and explictly local technique
to bring strange & unusual level types into the table of contents ...
which is that a <c> is tagged "otherlevel=toc" in order to bring it into
the toc (the style sheet also takes series, subseries, recordgrp, and
subgrp into the toc, but *not* the other established level attributes such
as file).

  Jackie M. Dooley, Head of Special Collections and University Archives
UCI Libraries, P.O. Box 19557, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
   Internet: [log in to unmask]  Phone: 714/824-4935  Fax: 714/824-2472

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Fox, Michael wrote:
> There are several concepts to be explored here- the notion that the
> files we have created (as housing units) do not correspond to the
> original housing units.
>
> There is also a related problem that I want to interject though Jackie
> doesn't, namely the concept of filing units.  There are often layers
> between the series or subseries and the file.  In organizational
> records, these may have been chronological or topical headers used to
> organize files.  When arranging units of personal papers, we archivists
> often create such arbitrary headings as a way of creating organizational
> subunits that really have no exact warrant but are useful for grouping
> materials into more manageable chunks.  We have no terms to describe
> these intermediary levels.
>
>    As a solution, one can always assign the "otherlevel" value to the
> Level attribute and define a suitable local value for the Otherlevel
> attribute.  But it would be nice to add some terms to the "closed list"
> for Level.  Jackie suggests the word "portfolio."    "Original file
> unit" might also apply here.  For the other type of level I might
> suggest "file organization unit" or some such mouthful.
>
> >----------
> >From:  Jackie Dooley[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent:  Tuesday, September 16, 1997 9:30 PM
> >To:    Multiple recipients of list EAD
> >Subject:       "file" attribute
> >
> >Is there a generally agreed-upon definition of the level attribute "file"?
> >We're trying to decide whether it would be appropriate in a circumstance
> >in which we want to nest multiple folder titles under a broader
> ><unittitle> indicating the the creator's original file units, e.g.
> >(example includes only partial tagging, obviously):
> >
> > <c01 level=file>Portfolio 1: its title.</c01>
> > <c02>First item from portfolio 1.</c02>
> > <c02>Second item from portfolio 1.</c02>
> > <c03>Third ...
> >
> > <c01 level=file>Portfolio 2: its title.
> > <c02>First ...
> >
> >The portfolios provide the only hierarchy in the entire container list
> >(ah, legacy data ...), so we would like to get the portfolio titles into
> >our table of contents by assigning a level, and the "file" attribute seems
> >like the only reasonable alternative other than "otherlevel".  All
> >comments and criticisms will be appreciated!
> >
> >Thanks--
> >