Date:         Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:24:04 -0500
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      date encoding
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi all,

I'm doing some mappings from item-level EAD inventories into item-level MODS records, and I've run into a problem with date encodings. My source EAD conforms to the EAD2002 XML Schema, which means all @normal attributes on dates are ISO8601. But the MODS date encoding attribute value of iso8601 is described in the User Guidelines <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-userguide-generalapp.html> as *only* the YYYYMMDD format, rather than any valid ISO8601 value, such as 1999/2000 for a date range. I know MODS has other mechanisms for date ranges, but I don't think that in this case implementing parsing of the EAD @normal attribute on dates to look for slashes and convert those into MODS-style ranges is getting enough benefit for the effort it would take. Is it really the intention for the MODS date encoding attribute of the value iso8601 to *only* refer to the YYYYMMDD pattern, and to no other valid ISO8601 encoding? If I've got ISO8601 but I can't guarantee it's YYYYMMDD, am I doomed to leaving the encoding attribute off the MODS date entirely?

Thanks!

Jenn

========================
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington
Wells Library W501
(812) 856-5759
www.dlib.indiana.edu

Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com