Multilevel Required instructions on Scope/Content need clearer wording

[regineheberlein]

Issue
The instructions regarding the requirements for scope/content notes in multilevel descriptions (ch.1) are not sufficiently clear about at what level of description the note is or isn’t required.

The relevant passages in the Requirements for Single-level Descriptions section read as follows:

Multilevel Required
The top level of a multilevel description with the minimum number of DACS elements includes:
[…]
• Scope and Content Element (3.1) Note: In a minimum description, this element may simply provide a >short abstract of the scope and content of the materials being described.
[…]
Each subsequent level of a multilevel description should include:
• All of the elements used at higher levels, unless the information is the same as that of a higher level >or if it is desirable to provide more specific information.
Notes:
[…]
• Scope and Content Element (3.1): Scope and contents are typically necessary for large units of >aggregation and are not required at the file or item level if the Title Element (2.3) is sufficient to describe >the material.

Discussion
Based on these three sentences, the DACS guidance on Scope/Content can be summarized as follows:

1. Scope/Content is required at the top level
2. Scope/Content is required at subsequent levels unless it is the same as that of the previous level
   --> Since information from higher levels is in scope for all lower levels of description, an argument can be made that this condition is always true. It effectively makes the scope/content note optional by default for all subsequent levels of description.
3. Scope/Content is “typically necessary” for “large units of aggregation”
   --> The qualifier “typically” undermines the “necessary,” which leaves the note in a ruminative state when it should be an actionable assertion. The reason for this is the undefined concept of “large,” which induces a condition to be resolved by the practitioner based on variable perceptions of size: IF the unit of aggregation is deemed to be “large” AND IF the descriptive situation is deemed to be “typical” THEN the note is required ELSE it is not. In the absence of a quantitative (or at least comparative) measure to define “large” and a standardized measure to define “typical,” this statement is less of an instruction and more of a speculation.
4. Scope/Content is “not required at the file or item level” if the title is sufficiently descriptive
   --> This wording, which continues the sentence discussed in no. 3, further implies that the file level is always the opposite of a “large unit of aggregation.” That is not the case (and is possibly a conflation of the unit of intellectual arrangement with physical folders such as the "simple paper-based files" referenced earlier in the text). Quite the contrary, in practice (and, for that matter, as implemented in EAD) a unit of aggregation designated as “file level” may be of any size, be nested within or contain further layers of file level aggregations, and exist as part of a “series” level structure or independently. In all cases, it may at the same time be considered “large” by the standards of the processing archivist. The contradiction leaves this recommendation confusing at best and non-actionable at worst.

Recommendation
Revise for clarity. The statements need to be unambiguous and actionable. Based on my personal interpretation of the spirit of these instructions, I suggest:
"
Each subsequent level of a multilevel description should include:
• All of the elements used at higher levels; notes should be scoped at increasing levels of specificity corresponding to each subsequent level of description.
[...]
• Scope and Content Element (3.1): Scope and contents are required at all subsequent levels of description with the exception of single item-level records or units of aggregation containing ten item-level records or fewer, provided those units of aggregation follow the descriptive conventions regarding titles discussed in 2.3.
"

[regineheberlein]

Closing this 2018 ticket and opening #33, encompassing discursive notes in general in light of linked data.