Manuscript data fields

I've noticed "manuscript" lacks some of the standard data fields. First, the "editor" creator type: I'd argue this should be added, since there are many editorial interventions into manuscripts and manuscript collections, including pulling them apart, rearranging them, etc. For the same reason, I think you need to put the "number of volumes" field back in. It would make it much easier to accurately enter a collection when you don't have time to go document by document.

Thank you!
  • See this ticket for discussion of pending changes to manuscript and document item types.

    I'm not sure about the two specific suggestions. In my mind, while there are similarities between the work of archivists and editors it does not really match the functional role that editor plays in citation. In some sense doesn't the Repository field identify the entity that would be the editor of the manuscript in this sense? Could you provide some examples of how this sort of editor relationship should appear in your ultimate citation?

    As far as number of volumes is concerned, as far as I'm concerned, the Location in Archive field offers a much better means to indicate this sort of information. Because Manuscript is such a general item type it seems like keeping a flexible field like this is a wiser approach than adding in a variety of specific fields, like number of volumes, each of which would only apply to a small number of the items in the type.
Sign In or Register to comment.