OK, going back to this issue of dates, how do I code:

February, 1999

Here I am assuming: <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-02</dateIssued>

Is that right?

What about:

November/December 1999


On Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 09:34  AM, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:

> The "Summer 1996" I would consider a chronological designation. In fact
> some journals use only an indication of year, month, season, etc. as
> the
> only designation. We propose also adding a date (if we used Karen's
> suggestion, it would be called subDocDate) to include such
> designations. That date could be structured or unstructured (i.e. as
> text). If structured it could be expressed as YYYYMMDD (used in MODS as
> encoding=iso8601) or YYYY-MM-DD (encoding=w3cdtf), or we could even
> consider an encoding=marc and use coded data from the MARC holdings
> format (there is indeed a method to encode Summer 1996 using a
> convention
> defined in MARC: (see:,
> where seasons are defined as: 21 Spring; 22 Summer; 23 Autumn; 24
> Winter.)  That's probably going a bit too far but it is available.
> If the only designation is chronological the question arises whether
> the
> information goes in subDocDate or gets parsed like volume and issue. (I
> would suggest the former since then it could follow the other encodings
> for dates).
> Rebecca
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 02:10  PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> An example of a use of these records would be in citation software.
>>> Depending on your citation style the enumeration may be expressed as
>>> "1993,
>>> v. 3, n. 7" or "3:7, 1993". That's easier to do if the captions are
>>> separate (or even eliminated, which citation software seems to do).
>> Exactly.  In general, you want pure numbers to allow for just the
>> flexibility you note, but you also want to leave for room -- as you
>> say
>> -- for things like "Summer," which ought to just be a straight text
>> field.
>> Bruce