Date:Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:10:29 -0500
Reply-To:Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: dates
Comments:To: Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The <date> in mods:part uses the same attributes as the specific forms of
dates under originInfo, i.e. encoding, point, qualifier. Since <part>
under <relatedItem> is intended to generate a citation, it is used to
indicate the chronology on the host item. So if you were describing an
article which was in a specific volume and issue of a journal issued
on a specific date, you would use this in mods:part/date. (so, yes, it is
like dateIssued). The point was to keep it associated with all the other
information under <part> to generate a citation or OpenURL.
Bibliographic dates (i.e. at the MODS record level or using any of the
specific dates under originInfo in relatedItem) do accommodate the
complexity you indicate below. Yours would be coded as follows (or maybe
I'm missing something?):
<originInfo>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf point="start">2000-01-04</dateIssued>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf point="end">2000-01-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
Rebecca
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> While not a huge deal, I just wanted to point out that as I've been
> working a lot with processing MODS, I've found that dates are rather
> difficult.
>
> 1) I don't understand why we have mods:part/mods:date, and I've never
> figured out when it ought to be used. Maybe
> <dateIssued>2000</dateIssued> and <date>Spring/Summer</date>?
>
> 2) Bibliographic dates, as we all, can be complex. I wish the date
> elements would support that complexity; stuff like:
>
> <date>
> <point encoding="w3>2000-01-02</point>
> <range>
> <begin>2000-01-04</begin>
> <end>2000-01-07</end>
> </range>
> </date>
>
> Bruce
>