Review the use of <agentRole> and <agentType> / Consider keeping @agentType as in EAC-CPF 2.0

[kerstarno]

Creator of issue

Ruth Kitchin Tillman
[email protected]
@ruthtillman

The issue relates to

• EAC-CPF schema issue
• EAC-CPF Tag Library issue
• EAD schema issue
• EAD Tag Library issue
• Schema issue
• Tag Library issue
• Suggestions for all schemas
• Suggestions for all Tag Libraries
• Other

Wanted change/feature

• Text: This issue has been separated out from the general comments provided in Brief comments on EAD4 rev #131 for further review. The following is copied from the original feedback.
• I have some thoughts on clarity in the sub-elements agentRole and agentType.
• The tag library's definitions are a little confusing and create a bit of conflation between these. <agentRole> makes straightforward sense to me and aligns with the use of the world "role" elsewhere. <agentType>'s definition and usage section includes: "...or to type an agent related in some way to the materials being described themselves, e.g. as the creator of such materials, as the previous or current holder of the materials, or as the subject of the materials etc. (in <agents>)." This "as" suggests to me that whoever wrote it was thinking <agentType>creator</agentType> would be an appropriate. However, it is my understanding that this is more about defining whether an agent is human, machine, etc.
• Examples I'm seeing in the TL follow the EAC-CPF @agentType model, which I'm guessing comes from older versions. I actually support this error and think it would make more sense to have the following model for the three elements (agentName included because required):

<agent agentType="human">
  <agentName valueURI="http://viaf.org/viaf/79397539">Alice Herz</agentName>
  <agentRole valueURI="http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/crp">correspondent</agentRole>
</agent>

Suggested Solution

• Text: My suggestion is to change agentType back to an attribute and reduce the complexity of attempting to make it a whole element on its own. Let it reference an EAS list or something and let people define their own if they want. The EAC-CPF list is too specific because was created to describe only agents who'd acted on the document itself, so you'd want to have something representing groups/corporate bodies/aggregates perhaps? Maybe change it up to something like the example in @targetType where it's a "person" vs a "human." But I think a fairly short controlled list could work for most users.

[kerstarno]

Will be discussed by TS-EAS during their meeting on 12/13 August 2024 at the SAA Annual Meeting.

Review together with #117 and #125, which both touch on role and type elements as well.