Hi Ethan –

I get the first sentence, but not sure I understand the “However” para.
For some reason -2100 is OK, but -2099 isn’t?  Why?


From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ethan Gruber
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EAD encoding of BCE dates

According to the ISO spec, 0000 is 1 B.C., so "-2099/-1999" is 2100-2000 B.C.
The XML schema spec doesn't follow ISO8601 on this, so if you are mapping dates into RDF for a SPARQL endpoint (which follows XSD) or planning to do any date-based math or chronological sorting in XSLT, XQuery, etc., the dates will need to be converted to -2100/-2000 for this purpose.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Michele R Combs <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
How are others encoding BCE dates?  ISO standard seems to be vague on it.  Would this be right?

<unitdate normal="-2100/-2000" type="inclusive">circa 2100-2000 BCE</unitdate>

Michele Combs | Lead Archivist
Special Collections Research Center
Syracuse University Libraries
222 Waverly Ave
Syracuse, New York 13244
t 315.443-2081<tel:315.443-2081> | e [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | w<>