 |
 |
I think these attributes are used for difference purposes. We use the 'type' attribute to trigger the stylesheet to display a particular label and we don't generally normalize except in the high-level <did> or at the component collection level <c01>. So one functions as a qualifier to the type of data and the other encodes the data to machine-readable standards. Mark Carlson Computer Support Analyst Special Collections University of Washington Libraries On 7/29/2010 2:07 PM, Custer, Mark wrote: > Okay, I guess this is just my problem :) > > Our EAD records definitely have instances of<unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1950/1980">... but since there isn't any other value that they could be, why continue to include type="inclusive"? Any date range would necessarily be inclusive (including a bulk date range), right? The only time that the range would need to be differentiated would be if it was a bulk range. > > I'm reminded of the "Two dozen and one greyhounds" Simpsons episode, when Lisa asks, "Mom, why do I have to wear a flea collar?" To which Marge responds, "Oh, it's just easier this way" [because the puppies outnumber the family members... just as, within our EAD at least, the non-bulk unitdates outnumber the unitdates] > > > Mark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michele R Combs > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:05 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Question about unitdate type attribute > >> what's the point of marking any of the unitdates with type="inclusive", especially if those >> elements also contain a normal attribute? > > > The simple presence of a normal attribute doesn't tell you whether the range is inclusive or bulk, which may be pretty important. With this: > > <unitdate type="inclusive" normal="1950/1980"> > > I know that ALL items in the folder fall in that range, whereas with this: > > <unitdate type="bulk" normal="1950/1980"> > > I know that MOST items in the folder are in that range. However, with this: > > <unitdate normal="1950/1980"> > > I can't be sure which it is. So from the perspective of precision, it's important. On the other hand, I agree that using inclusive for something like 2010-07-29 is a bit redundant :) > > Michele