Okay, I guess this is just my problem :)
Our EAD records definitely have instances of <unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1950/1980">... but since there isn't any other value that they could be, why continue to include type="inclusive"? Any date range would necessarily be inclusive (including a bulk date range), right? The only time that the range would need to be differentiated would be if it was a bulk range.
I'm reminded of the "Two dozen and one greyhounds" Simpsons episode, when Lisa asks, "Mom, why do I have to wear a flea collar?" To which Marge responds, "Oh, it's just easier this way" [because the puppies outnumber the family members... just as, within our EAD at least, the non-bulk unitdates outnumber the unitdates]
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about unitdate type attribute
> what's the point of marking any of the unitdates with type="inclusive", especially if those
> elements also contain a normal attribute?
The simple presence of a normal attribute doesn't tell you whether the range is inclusive or bulk, which may be pretty important. With this:
<unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1950/1980">
I know that ALL items in the folder fall in that range, whereas with this:
<unitdate type="bulk" normal="1950/1980">
I know that MOST items in the folder are in that range. However, with this:
I can't be sure which it is. So from the perspective of precision, it's important. On the other hand, I agree that using inclusive for something like 2010-07-29 is a bit redundant :)