Not pedantic from my perspective, just correct! I replied too quickly, just glancing at the original examples provided. It should certainly be -1999, as both you and Alex pointed out.
For more information directly from the IS0 8601:2004 standard, see sections 3.2.1 and 3.5 at the following, http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf (which is hosted elsewhere, so I don't know how long it will be available there).
Regarding the revision of EAD, I also think that Saa¹ha's suggestion is excellent, especially since EDTF addresses how to encode uncertain and approximate date values.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Greene
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Altering dates to show BCE-CE
I haven't followed the thread too closely, but was just looking at dates a couple of weeks ago.
I believe 2000 BCE would be -1999 in ISO 8601 since year 0000 is 1 BCE. Not to be pedantic or anything...
-------------------------------------------
Joseph Greene
Institutional Repository Project Manager
325 James Joyce Library
University College Dublin
(353 0)1 716 7398
[log in to unmask]
http://irserver.ucd.ie
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Custer, Mark
Sent: 08 June 2012 19:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Altering dates to show BCE-CE
Hi, Holly.
I think that the following would be your best bet, which is based on your last suggestion:
<unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
normal="-2000/2010" era="bce-ce" calendar="gregorian">2000 BCE-2010 CE</unitdate>
I don't know that the era attribute matters (can you leave it out, for instance, as Ethan suggested?), but it depends on how it's being used in your database, consortium, or whatever (and, if there isn't a local rule for how to handle such dates right now, perhaps your example can prompt one).
However, "bce/ce" won't work as an option due to the restrictions used by the schema, so that's why I used "bce-ce" in my reply (but there may be local guidelines that suggest something else entirely).
The calendar attribute, on the other hand, is very important. The choice of Gregorian makes me wonder if this shouldn't be something like "circa 2000 BCE," since I'm now curious about the date range and how it was established.
And, if there's just a single date range, this might be a good case to possibly include a "bulk" date range in the description, too.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Holly Deakyne
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Altering dates to show BCE-CE
My date range is from 2000BCE-2010CE. I'm using a form to create the XML, but this form does not support BCE dates so it has to be edited by hand.
This is what the XML looks like now:
<unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
normal="2000/2010" era="ce" calendar="gregorian">2000-2010</unitdate>
Would I do this?
<unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
normal="2000/2010" era="bce/ce"
calendar="gregorian">2000-2010</unitdate>
Or also add a negative:
<unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
normal="-2000/2010" era="bce/ce"
calendar="gregorian">2000-2010</unitdate>
Could I add to the text:
<unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
normal="-2000/2010" era="bce/ce" calendar="gregorian">2000 BCE-2010 CE</unitdate>
Mostly I think the era is wrong. How would I state this? Break it up into two somehow?
thank you,
Holly Deakyne
|
