I promise not to junk up the listserv anymore this week.  To correct my previous email, though, what I meant to type at the very end was:  "...the non-bulk unitdates outnumber the bulk unitdates."

There... that should actually make sense now.

Mark

________________________________________
From: Encoded Archival Description List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Carlson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about unitdate type attribute

I think these attributes are used for difference purposes.  We use the
'type' attribute to trigger the stylesheet to display a particular label
and we don't generally normalize except in the high-level <did> or at
the component collection level <c01>.  So one functions as a qualifier
to the type of data and the other encodes the data to machine-readable
standards.

Mark Carlson
Computer Support Analyst
Special Collections
University of Washington Libraries

On 7/29/2010 2:07 PM, Custer, Mark wrote:
> Okay, I guess this is just my problem :)
>
> Our EAD records definitely have instances of<unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1950/1980">... but since there isn't any other value that they could be, why continue to include type="inclusive"?  Any date range would necessarily be inclusive (including a bulk date range), right?  The only time that the range would need to be differentiated would be if it was a bulk range.
>
> I'm reminded of the "Two dozen and one greyhounds" Simpsons episode, when Lisa asks, "Mom, why do I have to wear a flea collar?"  To which Marge responds, "Oh, it's just easier this way" [because the puppies outnumber the family members...  just as, within our EAD at least, the non-bulk unitdates outnumber the unitdates]
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:05 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question about unitdate type attribute
>
>> what's the point of marking any of the unitdates with type="inclusive", especially if those
>> elements also contain a normal attribute?
>
>
> The simple presence of a normal attribute doesn't tell you whether the range is inclusive or bulk, which may be pretty important.  With this:
>
>       <unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1950/1980">
>
> I know that ALL items in the folder fall in that range, whereas with this:
>
>       <unitdate type="bulk" normal="1950/1980">
>
> I know that MOST items in the folder are in that range.  However, with this:
>
>       <unitdate normal="1950/1980">
>
> I can't be sure which it is.  So from the perspective of precision, it's important.  On the other hand, I agree that using inclusive for something like 2010-07-29 is a bit redundant :)
>
> Michele