>>>>> "RG" == Rebecca S Guenther <[log in to unmask]> writes: RG> Interesting what you've done with these dates. In your examples, RG> "inferred" doesn't mean anything to me. Is there a better more RG> descriptive name for that attribute? This is a limitation on the RG> accuracy of the date. Any ideas? I was groping for a term that might reflect that a date is from a non-proscribed source, or deduced by some means, a generic term that might include the AACR2 forms like  and [not before 1842]. As I said, not well thought out, for purposes of illustration only. RG> We had figured that if you have a date and there is no encoding specified RG> that it is assumed to be free text. That's why we didn't add anything like RG> "unstructured". In a number of places in MODS the lack of encoding or RG> authority means unstructured or uncontrolled. Is it necessary to RG> explicitly say that? If so, I would think that in terms of dates, it would RG> be encoding="unstructured", rather than type (also since we now might have RG> type=copyright under dateIssued). Point taken, elements in general are implicitly uncontrolled in the absence of some specific attribute. I think it is a problem in MARC that dates are stored in two locations with different conventions. It made sense when it was done, but a present it seems at best an opportunity for typographic errors. In MODS there is an opportunity avoid inheriting, or at least discourage, that problem. That said, it is probably impossible to support all forms of transcribed dates from normalized forms, even just thinking of western usages such as "anno 18." If supporting the full range of AACR2 transcibed date forms is important, my argument for storing only the normalized form of a date has just collapsed in a heap of rubble. Even so, there should be some formal encouragement or preference for dates to appear in their normalized forms, with uncontrolled forms available when needed. Tod A. Olson <[log in to unmask]> "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. Sr. Programmer / Analyst "If you weren't mad, you wouldn't have The University of Chicago Library come here," said the Cat.