-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should we index and display <revisiondesc> ? #1454
Comments
I would say yes as its transparency that's very useful for users. The ASpace PUI displays this. Here is an example
|
I've always viewed <revisiondesc> as an internal change summary. If I'm interpreting the ead2002 tag library correctly, it is supposed to be used for tracking changes to the finding aid as an ead document, and not necessarily to the finding aid's intellectual content. There are other elements for tracking substantial changes to collection description or contents, like <processinfo>, <separatedmaterial>, etc. Interested to hear how other folks use it! |
@gwiedeman Hmm, I didn't know the ASpace PUI displayed it. I'm just thinking of all the revisiondesc notes that say stuff like "fixed typo", "revised note order", "updated repository information", etc., and whether that really matters to researchers. Maybe it can at least be something you have to click through to, rather than have front-and-center? |
Yeah, this has come up at TS-DACS with saa-ts-dacs/dacs#70, as this should be more clearly defined and there's probably a ton of variation in practice. We often end up documenting reprocessing in both revisions and processing notes which is not great. Also, the ASpace PUI displays it if its published. Though for ASpace workflows at least, if its not published it shouldn't export to the EAD. |
It appears in the EAD header. We don't know if it is desired to display or if it's more of an internal thing for catalogers.
This ticket is broken out of #898
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: