Tim raises an important philosophical question. Without reviewing the
history of this particular attribute- it escapes my memory entirely at
the moment- one should always begin with the first question. To what
use am I going to put this attribute? Why should I bother with effort
and expense of including it?
This is true of all attributes. They are optional and to be used only
if they are or are likely in the future to be useful.
At least that's my perspective.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Tim Hutchinson
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: unitdate type attribute
The problem with the previous type attribute values inclusive, bulk and
single was that this really combined two different lists, resulting in
ambiguity. In particular, a "single" date can be either inclusive or
bulk: 1920-1945, bulk 1940 1940 2 January 1940
I'm surprised that "single" was mapped to datechar since this doesn't
seem like an appropriate use of datechar. Is it necessary to encode the
fact that a date is a single date? If you are implementing date
searching, I suspect the use of the NORMAL attribute would be more
effective.
Michael Rush wrote:
> Jenn,
>
> I have a hazy recollection of reading or being told that you should
> use
> type="inclusive" for single dates. If there is only one date, it's
> inclusive, right? I think that was the logic, although you could
argue
> that inclusive implies a range.
>
> I'm sending this offlist, as it is based solely on a vague
> recollection. I looked at the tag library but I didn't see anything
> that addressed this change. If it really vexes you, I'd email Michael
> Fox or Kris Keisling directly and ask one of them.
>
> Mike Rush
>
> At 10:45 PM 9/28/2005, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike-
>>
>> No report as such from this tool, I just happened to notice this
>> particular issue because I was comparing output from the tool to some
>> simple changes I'd made in order to decide how best to do this
>> conversion. I don't think it's putting in a default value in this
>> case. I do suspect its solution to not being able to use
>> type="single" in EAD2002 is to use the datechar attribute. As I
>> mentioned before, I'm not sure I like this approach. I'm still
>> wondering if it's safe to assume a unitdate is a single date if
>> there's no type attribute.
>>
>> Jenn
>
>
> ____________________________________
> Michael Rush | [log in to unmask]
> Processing Archivist / EAD Coordinator
> Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library
> Yale University
> P.O. Box 208240
> New Haven, CT 06520-8240
> Tel: (203) 432-8123 Fax: (203) 432-4047
--
Tim Hutchinson
University of Saskatchewan Archives
301 Main Library, 3 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A4
tel: (306) 966-6028 fax: (306) 966-6040
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.usask.ca/archives/
|
