Jordan Reiter wrote:
> Is there any way to add subcategories to the date, as in:
> date published (in non-electronic form, for example)
> date transcribed
> date released...?
Strictly speaking no, because qualifiers should be used only to refine,
not expand, the scope of the element itself, and the current (and deeply
unhelpful in my opinion) definition of DATE is:
"The date the resource was made available in its present form."
In many cases this date will be of little or no use for resource
discovery, as it often won't reflect the date at which the intellectual
content was created, simply the date the resource was made available in
it's current (i.e. digital) form.
> I think this is especially important,
I agree, and in practice, many early adopters of embedded DC (at least
here in the UK) have broken the 'refine not extend' rule and used
qualified forms such as dc.DATE.created, dc.DATE.lastModified etc.
> At 6:43 PM -0500 7/17/97, Andrew Prout wrote:
> >The main contenders at the moment I see as
> >
> >1. Leave the definition as is.
I don't think this is a viable option in view of the current ambiguous
and unhelpful definition
> >2. Expand a little.
> >3. Don't define at all, (aptly named "Date pristine") and assume the
> >date element is the date (singular), what ever that is, of the
> >resource being described.
I don't really mind either of these options in principle, provided the
new definition is unambiguous and broad enough to allow qualifers such
as .created, .lastModified etc. to be added without breaking the 'refine
not extend' rule.
T.
-- Tony Gill ---------------------- Programme Leader: ADAM & VADS --
Surrey Institute of Art & Design * Farnham * Surrey * GU9 7DS * UK
Tel: +44 (0)1252 722441 x2427 * Fax: +44 (0)1252 712925
-- [log in to unmask] -- http://adam.ac.uk -- http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/ --
|