Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:06:19 -0700
Reply-To:     Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Date accessed
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"; format=flowed

I definitely agree that we need the "date last accessed" as you describe,
combining the meanings of 1 and 4. This is required in some citation
formats. I have to admit that I never really grokked the "interest" aspect
of this so I kind of ignored it.

Have we agreed to add dataValid? I don't see it in 2.0.

kc

At 10:02 AM 9/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>We've had discussion about adding this date accessed to MODS. I would like
>to make a proposal. In response to Ray's message, I meant a combination of
>1 and 4. That it was the last time someone viewed or accessed the resource
>at a particular location. In other words, you are saying "this is the date
>that I accessed this resource at this location and can only say that it
>looked this way and it was accessible at this location on that date". I
>don't think it's a question of interest, but vouching for its being there
>and having that content at that point in time.
>
>So, given the fact that we now have decided to include URIs that are
>locations in the location element, I propose the following.
>
>Add dateLastAccessed as a subelement under location because it is relevant
>only to a date accessed at a particular location and not to the record as
>a whole. It would use the dateType definitions.
>
>I don't see a need to change dateValid. Although Ray suggested calling it
>dateApplicable, I'm not sure I see the advantage to that. Its meaning is
>explained in the guidelines. "dateValid" is used for a subfield of 046 in
>MARC to mean the same thing and is a Dublin Core term as well.
>
>Does anyone object to this approach?
>
>Rebecca
>
>On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>
> > I think the discussion of date accessed has mixed together the following:
> >
> > (1) The last time someone viewed the resource. (An indication of how much
> > interest there is. If the date is a year ago, not much interest. If
> it's one
> > minute ago, more interest.)
> > (2)  The last time that someone responsible for the resource said it was up
> > to date.
> > (3)The time when this resource becomes (or became) valid. Like a train
> > schedule.
> > (4) The last time it was accessed by a specific url.
> >
> > Now I think that Rebecca had (1) in mind, but that Bruce thought it was (2)
> > and suggested that that was really "date valid" which we already have, to
> > which Rebecca responded "no, date valid is (3)".  And I think that (4) is
> > extraneous to the discussion and just adds un-necessary complexity.
> >
> > Aside from my editorializing about (4), is my interpretation of this
> > discussion (roughly) accurate?
> >
> > --Ray
> >
> >

----------------------------------------------
Karen Coyle                    [log in to unmask]
       http://www.kcoyle.net

----------------------------------------------