Print

Print


Based on my personal experience, I would caution people against using 
the "nothing means something" technique of encoding as a general 
practice.  Sometimes the lack of something doesn't always mean what you 
think.  Lack of something can also mean that you just forgot to put that 
"something" in.  If you really need to distinguish single dates from 
non-single dates, I would recommend that you use another technique that 
is more robust such as using one of the other attributes.  If you 
normalize dates, you can determine a single date by the value in the 
normal attribute.

Mark Carlson
Special Collections
University of Washington Libraries

On 7/28/2010 10:36 AM, Custer, Mark wrote:
> Michele,
>
> I remember being confused about this when starting to look at collection dates in our EAD records.  For our personal best practices, I opted for this:
>
> Include type="bulk" when necessary
> Include type="inclusive" when a date range
> Exclude the type attribute altogether if a single date
>
> That way, I figured that I could easily isolate all three instances if need be.
>
> Mark Custer
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kris Kiesling
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question about unitdate type attribute
>
> The type attribute value "single" was valid in EAD Version 1.0,
> but was deprecated in Version 2002 (I don't recall why at this
> point), so is no longer a valid value for<unitdate type="">.
>
> Kris
>
> Kris Kiesling
> Elmer L. Andersen Director of Archives and Special Collections and
>
> Assistant University Librarian for Special Collections Advancement
> 305 Andersen Library
> 222 21st Ave. S.
> University of Minnesota
> Minneapolis, MN  55455
> voice:  612-626-5776
> fax:  612-625-5525
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Encoded Archival Description List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Question about unitdate type attribute
>
> For unitdate, the RLG best practices document mentions three
> kinds: bulk, inclusive, and single.  (See page 14 here
> http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/rlg/ead/bpg.pdf ).
> However, the EAD Tag Library only mentions bulk and inclusive (see
> http://www.loc.gov/ead/tglib/elements/unitdate.html ).
>
> Is 'single' in fact a legitimate option for the 'type' attribute?
> Since the RLG BP also says the type attribute is mandatory, we've
> just been using type=inclusive for all dates regardless, but now
> that I've noticed this in the RLG doc, it's made me wonder.
>
> Michele
>
> (be green - don't print this email!)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Michele Combs
> Manuscripts Librarian
> Special Collections Research Center
> Syracuse University Libraries
> 222 Waverly Ave.
> Syracuse, NY  13244
> 315-443-2081
> [log in to unmask]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~