There are no required or fixed attributes for EAD 2002 DTD UNITDATE
element. I wonder what else the conversion tool is changing. Is it
giving you a report?
Library of Congress
--- "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm planning for the conversion of a set of EAD1.0 finding aids to
> EAD2002. In EAD1.0, the type attribute could have the attributes
> inclusive or single. In EAD2002, this list is restricted to bulk or
> inclusive. For dates previously marked as single, is it correct to
> include a type attribute, rather than using type="inclusive"? The
> conversion tools available from
> <http://www.archivists.org/saagroups/ead/> add a datechar="single"
> attribute, which I'm not sure I like in this situation.
> So I'm thinking for a single date, something like <unitdate
> normal="19940802">August 2, 1994</unitdate> is sufficient to get
> meaning across. Does that sound reasonable?
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library E170
> (812) 856-5759
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around