LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.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

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  March 2011

DATETIME March 2011

Subject:

Sv: Re: [DATETIME] RIS

From:

Karin Bredenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:31:21 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

For the double dash:

Here in Sweden its a tradition when you write an archival description
and are making an interval to use the double dash and even the single
dash is sometimes used. But when you state the normalization you use the
slash for period.

Example one from the ead-homepage
(http://www.loc.gov/ead/tglib/elements/unitdate.html): 
<unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1952/1964">1952-1964</unitdate>

Example two from the swedish description
(http://xml.ra.se/ead/ARKIS_EAD_07.pdf page 6):
<unitdate certainty="[X]" type=”[X]”>[YYYY]--[YYYY]</unitdate>

Example three  from a swedish export of an archival description:
<unitdate type="inclusive">1595--1999</unitdate>

Example four from an swedish archival description transformed to an
APEnet archival description (APEnet is an archival portal for Europe):
<unitdate calendar="gregorian" era="ce" normal="1526/1813"
encodinganalog="3.1.3">1526--1813</unitdate>

So I would appriciate to be able to verify the elements value even
though you should use normalization. We havn´t started to use
normalization. But that said the use of ---Christmas also is appealing.
But double dash for period is higher on my list. 

Karin

>>> "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]> 2011-03-08
22:46 >>>
"1999///Christmas edition"  of course should have instead been
"1999---Christmas edition"  which of course would be a problem if we
retain the double dash syntax.  However the double dash syntax is on the
verge of removal as it is in "Last Call" status, and nobody has spoken
up for it. 

 

Assuming that we remove the double dash syntax, would this be a good
solution: '1999---"Christmas Edition" ' or   '1999-12--"Christmas
Edition" ' or  '1999-12-25-"Christmas Edition" '  ?

 

--Ray

 

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 2:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: [DATETIME] RIS

 

Looking quickly at it, it appears to allow you to say things like:
"1999///Christmas edition"  or more generally "YYYY/MM/DD/otherinfo"
where "otherinfo'" can be any string, used to qualify the date.

 

My first question is: is this a requirement?

 

If it is, it doesn't seem that it would be difficult to accommodate. 
But I would like to know if it is a requirement before we discuss it
further.

 

--Ray

 

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 2:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Last Call for Use Cases

 

It's a plain text bib format associated with reference manager. You can
Google for ris and refdb to get a summary. 

On Mar 7, 2011 2:02 PM, "Ray Denenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Sorry, but what is RIS? (Hard to google: a restaurant in DC, Reviving
the Islamic Spirit, Radiology Information System, and so on, but nothing
that seems relevant to dates.)
> --Ray
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:50 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask] 
>> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Last Call for Use Cases
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Karin Bredenberg
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Some comments in the text marked with Karin.
>> >
>> > But also a question:
>> > Cant find and may have missed, if something is undated and is
stated
>> > to be undated how to express that?
>> 
>> Good question.
>> 
>> I also don't recall: do we have some way to include an unstructured
>> component? I'm thinking about how RIS dates work:
>> 
>> YYYY/MM/DD/[other string]
>> 
>> Just asking.
>> 
>> Bruce

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

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 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
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager