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  November 2015

DATETIME November 2015

Subject:

Re: list lurker comment: some real dates

From:

Jarkko Hietaniemi <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:30:14 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (105 lines)

On Friday-201511-20 16:52, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
> "flourished", "born", and "died" would be outside the scope of this spec. They would be data elements of some other format whose values could be edtf expressions.

Yes, I understand that.

> It's beginning to get late in the process, as this is being moved along in ISO. But there is still time to make minor changes if they are simple and well-justified.  The changes would be fairly simple but I would need use cases.  If you could send me screen shots of these example (actual records with these notations) that would help.

Unfortunately I have left the position where I had more direct access to 
various library databases so I have to resort to public catalog interfaces.

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=11569&recPointer=0&recCount=25&bibId=18347394

has "active 15th century" in 100.d.

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=11629&recPointer=1&recCount=25&bibId=13158628

has "ca. 1320-1200 B.C." in 650.y (the subjects being another large 
contributor for temporal data).

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=11685&recPointer=0&recCount=25&bibId=12251157

has "approximately 480-approximately 550" in 100.d.

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=11725&recPointer=0&recCount=25&bibId=6428869

has "990?" in 100.d.

For a more modern example:

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=11732&recPointer=2&recCount=25&bibId=374121

has "1842-1914?" in 100.d.

I am unable to off-hand remember concrete examples of "year1 or year2" 
or "before/after" cases, but those do exist.

> Ray
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jarkko
>> Hietaniemi
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 4:28 PM
>> To: Denenberg, Ray; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] list lurker comment: some real dates
>>
>>
>>>   > 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC
>>>
>>> *I take this to mean "the interval beginning 276BC and ending
>>> approximately 195 or 194 BC".*
>>
>> Yes.  Sorry, mistyped "ca." as "c." here.
>>
>>> *We can't express approximately "195 or 194 BC", but really, that's
>>> not significantly different from "approximately 195BC" or
>>> "approximately 194BC", pick one (say the latter).*
>>
>> Well, true.  But for the cataloger making the entry the uncertainty was
>> significant enough to record in detail.
>>
>>> *We can express "the interval beginning 276BC and ending approximately
>>> 194 BC":*
>>>
>>> *-0275/-0193~*
>>>
>>> *(note I have used 275 and 193 instead of 276 and 194 because I assume
>>> you mean literal "BC" in which there is no year zero.  Edtf assumes a
>>> year zero.)*
>>
>> Yes, 1 BC (BCE) was before 1 AD (CE).
>>
>>> *Can't quite represent that. Can represent " July or August 1213 BC"
>>> but we haven't put in the spec the capability to put that expression
>>> in an interval.  It would be trivially easy to modify the spec to
>>> handle that, but we would need an expression of a use case for it.*
>>
>> Going over any large bibliographic database should gain plenty of examples.
>> bibmarc 100.d and 260.c, for example.
>>
>>>   > early 3rd century BC
>>>
>>> *I don't believe we can represent this. Ed Zimmerman might have
>>> something to say, because he suggests that we can represent "mid-18th
>>> century"  (though I'm not quite sure how).*
>>
>> early, late, middle; I assume both century and decade.
>>
>> Now I also remember seeing somewhere (the German authority records,
>> maybe) notations like 1st..4th quarter of a century.
>>
>>>   > fl. 780-770
>>>
>>>   > fl. around 1180
>>>
>>> *Sorry, I don't know what "fl." Means in this context. *
>>
>> "flourished", e.g. we know of works by this author, or some other events,
>> between these dates.  (Similarly, sometimes the MARC fields have "b." and
>> "d." for born and died, and naturally for other languages other abbreviations
>> are used...)
>>
>>
>

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