>>> Karen Coyle at: [log in to unmask] 09/26/03 03:06PM wrote>>>
>Have we agreed to add dataValid? I don't see it in 2.0.
<dateValid> is included in the list of proposed changes for version
3.0. A listing of all of the version 3.0 proposed changes is located
online at: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/changes-3-0.html.
Library of Congress
Network Development & MARC Standards Office
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
At 10:02 AM 9/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>We've had discussion about adding this date accessed to MODS. I would
>to make a proposal. In response to Ray's message, I meant a
>1 and 4. That it was the last time someone viewed or accessed the
>at a particular location. In other words, you are saying "this is the
>that I accessed this resource at this location and can only say that
>looked this way and it was accessible at this location on that date".
>don't think it's a question of interest, but vouching for its being
>and having that content at that point in time.
>So, given the fact that we now have decided to include URIs that are
>locations in the location element, I propose the following.
>Add dateLastAccessed as a subelement under location because it is
>only to a date accessed at a particular location and not to the record
>a whole. It would use the dateType definitions.
>I don't see a need to change dateValid. Although Ray suggested calling
>dateApplicable, I'm not sure I see the advantage to that. Its meaning
>explained in the guidelines. "dateValid" is used for a subfield of 046
>MARC to mean the same thing and is a Dublin Core term as well.
>Does anyone object to this approach?
>On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> > I think the discussion of date accessed has mixed together the
> > (1) The last time someone viewed the resource. (An indication of
> > interest there is. If the date is a year ago, not much interest.
> it's one
> > minute ago, more interest.)
> > (2) The last time that someone responsible for the resource said
it was up
> > to date.
> > (3)The time when this resource becomes (or became) valid. Like a
> > schedule.
> > (4) The last time it was accessed by a specific url.
> > Now I think that Rebecca had (1) in mind, but that Bruce thought it
> > and suggested that that was really "date valid" which we already
> > which Rebecca responded "no, date valid is (3)". And I think that
> > extraneous to the discussion and just adds un-necessary
> > Aside from my editorializing about (4), is my interpretation of
> > discussion (roughly) accurate?
> > --Ray
Karen Coyle [log in to unmask]