Dear all
> Does the Date Subgroup have any comment on this? I thought we were looking
> at a much more general definition like "a date associated with the
> resource" to allow for many different types of dates (date created; date
> last verified; date valid to, etc.) using the type qualifier. However, I
> have no objection to the above definition being the default type of date
> (i.e. the assumed definition when no qualifier is used).
Most if not all of the date subgroup have already replied to the list
as part of the current deluge of "what is in date" discussion.
The variety of views already expressed may be some indication of why
the date subgroup has had trouble coming up with the sought after
consensus.
The following is my view of date and not the subgroup's:
I have always been troubled by the expansion of the current date
semantics to include dates which mean radically different things,
ie. copyright date. I believe it is important that a searcher can
get a sensible result with an unqualified date search.
By forcing the need for qualifiers to make a date search sensible,
you are really de facto increasing the number of elements anyway.
I largely agree with Carl, I believe his solution would work. I held
off on a similar solution because I thought it would be unaccepatable
as it also broke the No Extra Elements think of the Tee Shirts rule.
But here it is anyway
The date element contains the [main] date of the resource, I am
happy with this very loose definition of what the date of the
resource is, but a rule of thumb would be that the resource being
described is likely only to have one date or one range of dates. ie
the date of the Empire State Building is 1929, the date of DC5 is Oct
1997, the date of this Email is 1 Oct 1997 etc etc. Date can only be
qualified if the qualification does not change the definition above.
The result of this for the searcher would be that a search on a date
or range of dates would retrieve a relatively sensible result.
Other dates could either be outside DC or if that is unacceptable we
create another place for the other dates within DC. I will call
that place "Other dates". Other dates can be qualified or not
qualified with no restriction
We have a precident for this, remember "Other Agent". Recently
there has been much discussion about the relationship between
Author/Contributor. Date/Other date is a solution following exactly
the same concept. There are some things that are important to
searchers (Date & Author) there are some things that can be put in
buckets (Contributors & Other dates)
Anyone agree? disagree?
Looking forward to this being discussed in Helsinki next week.
Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Prout
Team Leader, Database Management.
National Library of New Zealand.
Ph +64 4 474-3000 ext 8728
Fax +64 4 474-3042
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|