Since MODS has so much flexibility, I imagine that people will profile
what they want to use for their particular needs. You could certainly
consider the date of the issue itself the same as the date issued of an
article and choose to record in originInfo/dateIssued. The date of the
issue in <part> includes what we call "chronology" which in fact could be
"Spring 2004", "May 15, 2003", or any other possible form.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> > The <date> in mods:part uses the same attributes as the specific forms of
> > dates under originInfo, i.e. encoding, point, qualifier. Since <part>
> > under <relatedItem> is intended to generate a citation, it is used to
> > indicate the chronology on the host item. So if you were describing an
> > article which was in a specific volume and issue of a journal issued
> > on a specific date, you would use this in mods:part/date. (so, yes, it is
> > like dateIssued). The point was to keep it associated with all the other
> > information under <part> to generate a citation or OpenURL.
> But in practice this becomes tricky to figure out both how to code, and
> to process. The year of publication is always really critical for
> sorting and such, and in order to figure that out for an article, I have
> to have a pretty messy XSLT rule that says "look at mods:dateIssued,
> mods:relatedItem//mods:dateIssued, and mods:part/mods:date, and choose
> the first one you find."
> And I frankly get confused when contemplating a date associated with a
> journal article, because I think it would be legitimate to think of that
> as simultaneously the dateIssued for the article, and the journal issue.
> I guess I'm leaning towards not using using date at all, except to hold
> akward stuff like "Spring/Summer."
> > Yours would be coded as follows (or maybe
> > I'm missing something?):
> Nope; I missed it :-)