LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EAD Archives


EAD Archives

EAD Archives


EAD@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  June 2003

EAD June 2003

Subject:

Re: searching on dates?

From:

Bill Landis <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Encoded Archival Description List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:41:30 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

The problem Chris points out is a vexing one. I personally hate to see <date> and <unitdate> get used willy nilly by archivists around the world, since it seems to me that it poses a real quandry in the future, especially in union database settings, trying to figure out what dates to index in a way that will return meaningful results to an end user, or allow end users to sort result sets in a meaningful way.

The work that has been going on in the U.S./Canadian CUSTARD project differentiates between the following, all of which an archivist might wish to associate with an archival unit being described:
*date(s) of creation
*date(s) of recordkeeping activity
*date(s) of publication, distribution, etc.
*date(s) of reproduction
*date(s) of broadcast

Content (or as Chris characterized them, subject) dates are specifically excluded from the date element associated with the creation of the unit and redirected to the Scope and content element. CUSTARD is not dealing with subject-based access points, but it seems to me that subject/content dates belong there as well in any system that allows subject-based retrieval (as Chris notes in his EAD workaround example).

I'd really like to see the next version of EAD open up the TYPE attribute on <unittitle> to #CDATA, allowing it to function the way TYPE functions in the <date> element. That way, at least, standards of national practice could be set for prescribed kinds of <unitdate>s and more clarity could be provided in the definition of <unitdate> in the tag library as to what should and shouldn't be included.

I'd also like to see some kind of chronological "subject" subelement added to those that can be encoded within <controlaccess> to make it legal using the EAD DTD to do what Chris has done in a workaround. I think this makes perfect sense.

Bill

Chris Turner wrote:

> We have had to address this same issue for the LEADERS Project,
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leaders-project, and in the process realised that there
> was a further issue with EAD and date searching.  The only specific dating
> elements in EAD are <unitdate> for date of creation and <date> for a lot of
> other things too numerous to list here.
> However for date searching we really need an element to describe the
> coverage date(s).  For example George Orwell writes a letter in 1948 which
> describes his experiences in the Spanish Civil War in 1936-38.  Clearly
> 1936 -1938 would be useful dates for a user to be able to search on.  But
> how to encode it in EAD?
>
> Our solution is like Matt to 'enhance' EAD, by using the <date> element
> within the <controlaccess> wrapper where other searchable data is encoded.
> We use the 'type' attribute on <date> to specify 'subject', 'creation' etc.
> We also use the standard ISO date notation of '/' to specify a date range
> e.g.
>  <controlaccess>
>                     <date type='subject'>1936/1938</date>
> </controlaccess>
>
> This enables us to tell our search engine where and how index dates for end
> user search and retireval.
>
> But it looks as if we need an 'official' solution to this from the EAD
> because ad hoc solutions seem to be proliferating.
>
> Chris Turner
> Senior Research Fellow: Leaders Project
> School of Library, Archive and Information Studies
> University College London
> Gower Street
> London WC1E 6BT
> +44(0)20 7679 7205
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/leaders-project
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hillyard, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:40 PM
> Subject: Re: searching on dates?
>
> > Access to Archives (A2A) does indeed offer the functionality to search on
> > dates.
> >
> > However, this has been achieved (in the privacy of our online database) by
> > exploiting the "eXtensibilty" of XML, ie. we were unable to achieve the
> > desired effect by actually conforming to the EAD DTD in this one regard,
> and
> > had to bring in mercenary tags of our own...
> >
> > The inability of EAD to encode a formal distinction between first and last
> > dates (for date range searching) has always been a stumbling-block for me
> > whilst trying to develop various EAD-based applications over the years.
> Yes,
> > there is the ability to encode a machine-readable, normalised version of
> > dates - but no actual *distinction* between first and last dates is
> catered
> > for.
> >
> > So developers either have to get out their Regular Expressions and jump
> > through several hoops to tweeze out the two limits of the range from the
> > normal= attribute value, as in:
> >
> > <unitdate normal="19010904-19670327">4 Sept. 1901 - 27 March
> 1967</unitdate>
> >
> > or come up with an 'innovative' use of EAD upfront, such as:
> >
> > <unitdate label="first" normal="19010904">4 Sept. 1901 </unitdate>
> > <unitdate label="last" normal="19670327">- 27 March 1967</unitdate>
> >
> >
> > Personally, I would much rather see the ability to have something like:
> >
> > <unitdate firstnormal="19010904" lastnormal="19670327">4 Sept. 1901 - 27
> > March 1967</unitdate>
> >
> > or perhaps even something like:
> >
> > <unitdate><firstdate normal="19010904">4 Sept. 1901</firstdate> -
> > <lastdate normal="19670327">27 March 1967</lastdate></unitdate>
> >
> >
> > I'm afraid I have to admit that for A2A, we ended up introducing the
> non-EAD
> > tags <firstdate> and <lastdate> to achieve the desired search
> functionality.
> >
> > And as a consequence from that point on, our data stopped being 'valid'
> XML
> > and became only 'well-formed' XML instead. Not to mention having to strip
> > these foreign tags out again when thinking about exchanging EAD data with
> > other institutions...
> >
> > Matt Hillyard
> > A2A Developer
> > The National Archives
> > London
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivo Zandhuis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 18 June 2003 09:28
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: searching on dates?
> >
> >
> > Access to Archives has the functionality to search on dates:
> > http://www.a2a.pro.gov.uk/search/index.asp
> >
> > ------
> > Ivo Zandhuis
> > digital access to cultural information - research and consultancy
> > http://www.zandhuis.nl/index_en.html
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "C. Perry Willett" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:30 AM
> > Subject: searching on dates?
> >
> >
> > > I'm implementing a system for search and display
> > > of EAD finding aids, and one feature that our
> > > archivists have requested is a search or limit by
> > > date. It's not easy, so I looked for examples of
> > > how other sites might do it. I have found only
> > > one site that has actually implemented a date search:
> > > Archival Resources (and it's a little misleading,
> > > since it seems to be only searching for dates that
> > > might explicitly appear in finding aids, and not
> > > for dates within ranges).
> > >
> > > I don't find any other site that uses dates at all,
> > > which raises a few questions for me. I had advised the
> > > archivists to encode dates and to use the "normal"
> > > attribute, and they're dutifully following directions.
> > > However, if we're not going to use them, why encode them?
> > > I realize that there might be a future payoff, but there
> > > are costs associated with encoding decisions today.
> > > Do people want to use dates in searching? If so, how?
> > > Why do no systems use them?
> > >
> > > Perry Willett
> > > Main Library
> > > Indiana University
> > > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain information that is
> confidential  to The National Archives.
> > If you are not the intended recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy
> the message or attachments.  In such a case,
> > please notify the sender by return e-mail immediately and erase all copies
> of the message and attachments.
> > Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and
> attachments that do not relate to the official business
> > of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
> >

--
| Bill Landis
| Manuscripts Librarian, Special Collections and Archives
| The UCI Libraries, University of California
| P.O. Box 19557, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
| 949 824.3113 Voice | 949 824.2472 Fax
| [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
December 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager