Print

Print


Glad to see I have company :) and yes, adding a "label" attribute to the
PHYSFACET element would be preferrable to a whole new element and would be
great! For the reasons outlined in my last message, I would still find it
very useful to also have a "source" attribute of PHYSFACET to identify the
source of my label and be able to call/identify labels from certain sources
in mixed environments, etc. It would be equivalent to how we are now able
to insert controlled vocabulary terms in some of the other elements, and
yet also identify the source of that term since many terms will appear in
several controlled vocabulary yet mean different things. Same is true of
these type of structures.


Is this do-able? Any other ideas on how to do this kind of markup (although
I like your track right here Michael; seems perfectly logical given what
we've needed and come up with so far too)?


Richard Rinehart              | Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
Systems Manager & Education   | University of California
Technology Specialist         | 2625 Durant, Berkeley, CA 94720-2250
[log in to unmask] | http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/
& Board of Directors, Museum Computer Network, http://www.mcn.edu/

>Rich,
>   I have the same problem with my quilt collection inventory which you
>will see at MCN.
>
>>   The information you are including in the label attribute, e.g.,
>material-materialname was intended to go into either an element called
><facettype> or an attribute of the same name in the <physfacet> element.
>  In the rush of last minuet changes, it didn't make it into Beta but I
>have suggested its addition to version 1.   I personally prefer the
>attribute model.
>
>    Would this be a satisfactory solution?
>
>Michael
>>----------
>>From:  Richard Rinehart[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent:  Thursday, October 02, 1997 4:47 PM
>>To:    Multiple recipients of list EAD
>>Subject:       physdesc/physfacet feedback
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've been using the EAD to encode finding aids to art collections in our
>>museum (which are online at
>>http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/search/collectionguides.html) and I'd like
>>to offer some feedback on changes to the DTD I think might be useful. I
>>know the EAD comes out of the library/archive worlds, but it is already SO
>>enormously useful and much-needed in the museum community that I think some
>>minor considerations which could benefit all, could also make the EAD even
>>more precise and useful for museums.
>>
>>Some feedback has already been given on the need for more detail in the
>>PHYSDESC/PHYSFACET tags, which is where I also feel a little tweaking is
>>needed for collections which need to provide more precise information on
>>the physical aspects, since these are primary access points for us.
>>
>>Below I've included some tagging along the lines I've been using for
>>describing typical museum/art objects. This tagging is currently legal, but
>>is not perhaps what was envisioned with the PHYSDESC tag so far. In
>>addition to the AAT for controlled vocabular terms, we use the CDWA
>>(Catagories for the Descriptions of Works of Art) as the structural
>>organization for our museum records. The CDWA is not about syntax at all,
>>and is very flexible that way, allowing us to use it as a model for our
>>collections database, and (hopefully) in our related systems such as
>>finding aids to allow integration.
>>
>><C><DID>
>><UNITTITLE>Yellow Table on Yellow Background</UNITTITLE>
>><UNITDATE>1936</UNITDATE>
>><PHYSDESC SOURCE="OTHERSOURCE" OTHERSOURCE="CDWA"
>>LABEL="measurement-dimensions">
>><DIMENSIONS>41 x 50 inches</DIMENSIONS>
>></PHYSDESC>
>><PHYSDESC SOURCE="OTHERSOURCE" OTHERSOURCE="CDWA"
>>LABEL="material-materialname">
>><PHYSFACET>oil on canvas</PHYSFACET>
>></PHYSDESC>
>></DID>
>><CONTROLACCESS>
>><GENREFORM SOURCE="AAT" NORMAL="paintings">
>></GENREFORM>
>><PERSNAME SOURCE="ULAN" NORMAL="Hofmann, Hans" ROLE="artist">Hans
>>Hofmann</PERSNAME>
>></CONTROLACCESS></C>
>>
>>Basically, I found I needed more detail than the EAD currently allowed -
>>for instance we needed to indicate materials used in the creation of an
>>object specifically, where the EAD would put that under the broad tag of
>>PHYSDESC or PHYSFACET. We need to separate this element out from other
>>elements in the physical description of the object, such as processes used
>>in it's creation, or dimensions. So, to add granularity to the PHYSDESC I
>>used the available attributes of source to indicate where I was getting my
>>lables from, and label to indicate the actual term taken from the CDWA that
>>describes that facet of it's physical description. This level of info seems
>>like it would make more sense at the PHYSFACET level, but is not available
>>there yet. I used hyphens to indicate the level in the heirarchy of the
>>CDWA that the term occurs at since there are duplicate terms at different
>>levels.
>>
>>Basically something like this allows the person marking up to use the
>>general EAD tags which are themselves useful, but also to add some
>>subject/domain-specific structure and detail to them, so art objects might
>>get extra CDWA-derived attributes added, medieval manuscripts could use
>>another organization, all in the same framework. If a "source" and "label"
>>attribute were added to the PHYSFACET element, it would not be overly
>>complex, EAD users could ignore them or use them. It would maintain the
>>interoperability of all EAD documents because it does not add an entire
>>specialized element, and yet it would allow more precise retrieval of
>>certain types of records, especially in environments of finding aids for
>>mixed types of collections. (I'm thinking of this one in particular as we
>>are contributing our finding aids the a larger "UC-EAD" project, which will
>>have a smattering of art objects/finding aids among many archival finding
>>aids). Although "label" used to be an attribute of the PHYSFACET element, I
>>feel that "source" would also be important for precision, since say
>>medievalists may use the same term as art catalogers ("name" or
>>"material"), but use it in very different ways.
>>
>>So, although it might seem like unneeded complexity, I can think if
>>immediate practical benefits already. The CDWA comes from the Getty along
>>with the AAT and ULAN and could be added as an allowed source, or left open
>>for the user. I'd be curious to hear if current markup can already do what
>>I'm looking for another way, or if this would create confusion about what a
>>"controlled vocabulary" is or any other comments as I'm working with this
>>right now.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Richard Rinehart              | Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>Systems Manager & Education   | University of California
>>Technology Specialist         | 2625 Durant, Berkeley, CA 94720-2250
>>[log in to unmask] | http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/
>>& Board of Directors, Museum Computer Network, http://www.mcn.edu/
>>



Richard Rinehart              | Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
Systems Manager & Education   | University of California
Technology Specialist         | 2625 Durant, Berkeley, CA 94720-2250
[log in to unmask] | http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/
& Board of Directors, Museum Computer Network, http://www.mcn.edu/