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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  July 2009

MODS July 2009

Subject:

Re: temper date format in MODS

From:

Jon Stroop <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:52:30 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (149 lines)

Ray,
Good points!

You're right, perhaps it was an overstatement on my part to say TEMPER
"can handle" non-Gregorian dates. I guess the point I was trying to
make is that we need a way to encode, and, ultimately, manage these
types of dates in our records, and that TEMPER might be a way forward.
I agree that until there is an established and recognized set of
calendar codes and formatting conventions, using another format probably
doesn't make much sense--at least we have display strings now and, if
we're not careful, in the end we won't even have those. Of course,
introducing another date format into the mix also means potentially
having to sacrifice some interoperability between MODS records in
general, but I guess these are the expenses that the MODS committee is
trying to weigh.

Long term, It seems to me that establishing a calendar list would be the
way to go. It's a big project because each calendar, as you point out,
would need to have its own formatting conventions established as well.
I have no idea how much of this work has already been done, but from a
data and programming perspective we may be talking about a new set of
data types for each established calendar.

Also, as an aside, one of the nice things about the established
date/time formats, such as the XML primitive date and time types, is the
functions (XPath in this case) that languages make available to
encapsulate parsing and display formatting. With other calendars you'd
likely want to be able do the same, and maybe convert to a Gregorian
date (or date range) as well. I think any new date format would be much
more likely to gain traction if these sorts of helper libraries were
made available.

-Jon

Jon Stroop
Metadata Analyst
C-17-D2 Firestone Library
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone: (609)258-0059
Fax: (609)258-0441

http://diglib.princeton.edu
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead



Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> Hi Jon -
>
> The Temper draft does recognize the Non-Gregorian requirement. Temper
> does mention Non-Gregorian Calendars while EDTF does not.
>
> However the Temper section on non Gregorian Calendars, section 1.3 in
> the most recent draft (that I can find) - August 2007,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kunze-temper-01 - mostly covers BCE
> dates. And EDTF does provide full support for BCE dates and does so in
> a manner compatible with ISO 8601 (while Temper's approach is not
> compatible with 8601). In any case BCE dates is normally not the issue
> when discussing non-Gregorian calendars.
>
> Aside from BCE support though, the only non-Gregorian support Temper
> offers is to reserve all 3-letter codes for future use to indicate
> calendar (Hebrew, Chinese, Islamic, etc.) It does not actually
> recognize any specific codes, because they don't exist.
>
> In fact, in early drafts of EDTF there was (roughly) similar support
> for non-gregorian dates, but the conclusion was drawn that that level
> was next to useless and that it was too hard a problem to solve, at
> least in the first version. It's a two level problem: first, to
> indicate what calendar, and second, to represent the date in the
> proper format for that calendar. Obviously we aren't trying to solve
> the second problem, but even the first doesn't lend itself to solution
> without some recognized vocabulary of calendar codes.
>
> Nevertheless, Temper is to be applauded for at least recognizing the
> problem. Note that EDTF is still a work in progress and if you have
> suggestions on how to approach this problem they would be very
> welcome. EDTF can certainly reserve a three-letter field for calendar
> code, if that would help.
>
> --Ray
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Stroop" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [MODS] temper date format in MODS
>
>
>> Jenn,
>> I'm not very familiar with TEMPER, but as far as I know it is the
>> only format under consideration that can handle non-Gregorian dates
>> (EDTF does not, correct?). This has been a problem for us for a
>> while, and though TEMPER (or any other format) doesn't automatically
>> solve problems of interoperability with other calendars that may
>> arise, having a way to encode the data would certainly be a start.
>> -Jon
>>
>> Jon Stroop
>> Metadata Analyst
>> C-17-D2 Firestone Library
>> Princeton University
>> Princeton, NJ 08544
>>
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Phone: (609)258-0059
>> Fax: (609)258-0441
>>
>> http://diglib.princeton.edu
>> http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead
>>
>>
>>
>> Riley, Jenn wrote:
>>> Dear MODS implementers:
>>>
>>> There is a proposal in front of the MODS/MADS Editorial Committee to
>>> add the EDTF date format <http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/> to
>>> the list of values for the encoding attribute in the MODS date
>>> elements. This has led the Editorial Committee to think about other
>>> date formats used in our community that MODS might need to
>>> implement. One that comes to mind is the TEMPER spec
>>> (<http://www.cdlib.org/inside/diglib/ark/temperspec.pdf>,
>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kunze-temper-01>). We understand
>>> some revision/maintenance of TEMPER is happening, although not very
>>> publicly so it is a bit unclear at this time if institutions are
>>> considering TEMPER a viable date format to use. Are any MODS
>>> implementers using TEMPER at this time or have plans to? Is it
>>> necessary or desirable for MODS to add "temper" as a value for the
>>> encoding attribute on date elements?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Jenn Riley on behalf of the MODS/MADS Editorial Committee
>>>
>>> ========================
>>> 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

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