We've had discussion about adding this date accessed to MODS. I would like
to make a proposal. In response to Ray's message, I meant a combination of
1 and 4. That it was the last time someone viewed or accessed the resource
at a particular location. In other words, you are saying "this is the date
that I accessed this resource at this location and can only say that it
looked this way and it was accessible at this location on that date". I
don't think it's a question of interest, but vouching for its being there
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 relevant
only to a date accessed at a particular location and not to the record as
a whole. It would use the dateType definitions.
I don't see a need to change dateValid. Although Ray suggested calling it
dateApplicable, I'm not sure I see the advantage to that. Its meaning is
explained in the guidelines. "dateValid" is used for a subfield of 046 in
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 following:
> (1) The last time someone viewed the resource. (An indication of how much
> interest there is. If the date is a year ago, not much interest. If 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 train
> (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 was (2)
> and suggested that that was really "date valid" which we already have, to
> which Rebecca responded "no, date valid is (3)". And I think that (4) is
> extraneous to the discussion and just adds un-necessary complexity.
> Aside from my editorializing about (4), is my interpretation of this
> discussion (roughly) accurate?