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:

Re: Before/after indicator LAST CALL

From:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:19:49 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

The below is solvable by appropriately designing the metadata model.
One such solution could be:

publication dates: 2003/
record last updated: 20110321

If the publication ends in 2015 and a user examines the record in 2016 they
can clearly see that from the state of knowledge in 2011...

The record last updated data is relevant to all kinds of other content.. not 
just dates.. even the name  could change--- is this is new journal and the 
end of the old or a continuation of the same journal under a new name?
The journal "Psychiatry 2010"--- indexed as Psychiatry (Edgemont)-- has 
changed its name, for example, this year to Innovations in Clinical 
Neuroscience. Is this a new journal? Should its publication dates listed as 
2004/ ? Or new record and the old one is 2004/2010 and a new record 2011/ ? 
All these are correct and possible (and it is not up to me to decide).. 

The bottom line: any value in a bibliographic record is only from the state 
of knowledge the editor had at the time of the last update to the record..

perhaps another (additonal) field is appropriate:
record last checked: 20111021

This can indicate through the difference between "record last updated" 
and "record last checked" ....
(and again, its not up to me to decide upon ones profile resp. model..)

IN Bib1 we have

1011     Date/time added to database
1012     Date/time record last modified


On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:41:47 +0100, [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala wrote
> Hello!
> 
> > Since permissions are an on-going
> > thing they are clearly defined by an
> > interval (many of a series of incremental
> > dates) rather than a single point
> > (date) within a continuum.  "publication
> > dates of journals or other serially
> > issued resources" that are still being
> > published--- and to which no plans
> > have been expressed to cease
> > publication--- are clearly defined too by
> > "open ended" intervals.
> OK! We need open-ended intervals. In the light of the examples above, an 
> attendant question is immediately rising: Should open-ended intervals 
> (always) contain only ONE date?
> 
> Let's assume that journal J was first published in 2003 and is still 
> published as of today. We can encode that as an open-ended interval 
> begining in 2003, but then, the information "as of today" would not be 
> recorded there (read below). The concept of "today" is varying with time - 
> every day. At a later date, someone reading such a record containing the 
> open-ended interval may wonder when this information was recorded and if 
> such information is not available, this person will not be given more 
> information than "journal J was first published in 2003". The open-ended 
> interval would loose accuracy and be reduced to a (semantically) 
> non-interval "date of first publication".
> 
> On the other hand, if we choose to encode open-ended intervals with TWO 
> dates, we could express something like: "Journal J was first published in 
> 2003 and was still regularly published as of 2011". Such an encoding would 
> make it possible to preserve the "as of date D" information which could be 
> useful to future readers of the record. The interval nature of the record 
> would be preserved for the future and would be protected from being 
> reduced to a (semantically) non-interval "date of first publication".
> 
> A similar reasoning could be applied to permissions as they are expressed 
> in the quote above.
> 
> Information of when the whole post was last updated may not be useful 
> enough, since other records in the post may have been updated later.
> 
> I'm aware that the terms "record", "post" and "field" are not always used 
> consistently, but I assume that you understand my point.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> [UTF-8?]Saašha,


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967

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