> 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...
> record last checked: 20111021
> This can indicate through the difference
> between "record last updated" and
> "record last checked" ....
This works in many cases, but I would suggest to make more obvious the
bipartite nature of such a record, such as:
first published in: 2003
publication still ongoing during: 2011
each of which could (when needed) also be given the possibility of a
record last updated: some-date
through the design of the metadata model, which would make obvious which
part was updated when.
For the user (patron or librarian or someone else), the combined use of
"first published in" and "publication still ongoing during" may be easier
or faster to understand than the consequences of different values in
"record last updated" and "record last checked".