LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  November 2007

MODS November 2007

Subject:

Re: date encoding

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:22:34 -0500

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (88 lines)

The biggest problem here is the fact that ISO 8601 defines a bunch of
alternatives and representations and it is difficult to specify what
portions of ISO 8601 you are using. In MODS we have enumeration values
"w3cdtf" and "iso8601" and we specifically define what we mean when we say
the encoding is "iso8601" to distinguish it from what "w3cdtf" means
(since the latter also is compliant with and a subset of
8601). The purpose of the guidelines was to say that we are using
what is called the "basic" form in ISO8601 (i.e. the form without
the hyphens, which is YYYYMMDD etc.) rather than the "extended" form,
which is the form with hyphens (YYYY-MM-DD) as specified also in W3CDTF.
 
Although I am not an EAD expert, it looks like EAD also specifies
particular constructs from ISO 8601 and is using the date range as
specified there. In your case you want to use the date range construct
from 8601, which is specified in EAD. That is represented as a date with a
slash and another date. In MODS we parse the start and end dates into
separate elements (as you noted below). So in EAD it might look like
1999/2000 and in MODS it would be <dateIssued encoding="iso8601"
point="start"> (or whatever date type you have). I can understand why you
don't want to have to parse these. I see no reason why we can't say that
your form is also iso8601 and fix the guidelines to say it is anything
allowed by ISO 8601 using the basic rather than extended form (where this
is applicable). In the case of W3CDTF you would use xs:date as specified
in XML schema that restricts it to the form with the hyphens if you want
it to validate. Using "iso8601" doesn't place such a restriction on the
data, so changing the guideline would not be a big deal and our intention 
was not to restrict it so much. 

Note that we (our office at LC) are trying to work on this problem and
come up with some other profile of ISO 8601 that can be used with various
XML formats, including MODS and PREMIS. That will include being able to
use the basic 8601 format without hyphens, and to deal with questionable,
open date ranges, BCE dates, etc.-- and have a name to call these sorts of
encodings. We know we can't fix the problems with ISO 8601 but if we can
define a different profile and then extend it to accommodate other sorts
of dates, we would all benefit.

Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
^^  Network Development and MARC Standards Office         ^^
^^  1st and Independence Ave. SE                          ^^
^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
^^  [log in to unmask]                                          ^^
^^                                                        ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Riley, Jenn wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm doing some mappings from item-level EAD inventories into
> item-level MODS records, and I've run into a problem with date
> encodings. My source EAD conforms to the EAD2002 XML Schema, which
> means all @normal attributes on dates are ISO8601. But the MODS date
> encoding attribute value of iso8601 is described in the User
> Guidelines
> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-userguide-generalapp.html>
> as *only* the YYYYMMDD format, rather than any valid ISO8601 value,
> such as 1999/2000 for a date range. I know MODS has other mechanisms
> for date ranges, but I don't think that in this case implementing
> parsing of the EAD @normal attribute on dates to look for slashes and
> convert those into MODS-style ranges is getting enough benefit for the
> effort it would take. Is it really the intention for the MODS date
> encoding attribute of the value iso8601 to *only* refer to the
> YYYYMMDD pattern, and to no other valid ISO8601 encoding? If I've got
> ISO8601 but I can't guarantee it's YYYYMMDD, am I doomed to leaving
> the encoding attribute off the MODS date entirely?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jenn
> 
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> www.dlib.indiana.edu
> 
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager