[Archivesspace_Users_Group] Fwd: Normalizing Single "Inclusive Dates"

[Jaime Margalotti]

I sent the message below a few weeks ago and did not receive any
responses.  With SAA coming up and discussion of EAD3 inevitable, I've been
thinking about it again.  I realize that ArchivesSpace is built around
EAD2002 and it will be a while before EAD3 happens, but it doesn't hurt to
be proactive and the question is still valid if EAD3 is entirely ignored.

As I understand it, EAD3 will still have <unitdate> and it will be quite
similar to the one we're already using.  EAD3 will also have the option of
using <unitdatestructured> instead.  Both will still only have the possible
values for the @unitdatetype of "bulk" or "inclusive." However,
<unitdatestructured> will offer more granularity and have as its possible
children: <daterange>, <dateset>, or <datesingle>.

A normalized <datesingle> would looke like:

<unitdatestructured unitdatetype="inclusive">
<datesingle standarddate="1955-08-25">1955 August 25</datesingle>
</unitdatestructured>

A normalized <daterange> would look like:

<unitdatestructured unitdatetype="inclusive"><daterange><fromdate
standarddate="1950-08-01">1950 August 1</fromdate><todate
standarddate="1955-09-25">1955 September 25</todate>
</daterange>
</unitdatestructured">


Getting back to my original issue (please see message below) ... EAD3 is
allowing you to have a <unitdatestructured> with the @unitdatetype of
"inclusive" *AND* a child tagged as <datesingle>, but ArchivesSpace is set
up in a way that is forcing you to choose to define a <unitdate> as
"inclusive" *OR* "single." Since EAD2002 removed the "single" value from
the  "type" "attribute, "single" dates have always been defined as
"inclusive."

With this in mind, is there a preferred way for me to encode single dates
in the current EAD2002-centric ArchivesSpace that is less likely to cause
problems going forward?  We have an enormous (and set to grow) number of
small/single item collections with single dates, so this is important for
me to get right.

Many Thanks!
Jaime

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jaime Margalotti <jmargalo at udel.edu>
Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:55 AM
Subject: Normalizing Single "Inclusive Dates"
To: archivesspace_users_group at lyralists.lyrasis.org


In EAD 2002, the "single" date attribute disappeared and we were left with
"inclusive" and "bulk."  What would have been "single" was now "inclusive."


We have a large number of collections with single "inclusive" dates.  When
the XML was imported into ArchivesSpace, the normalized form of the date
was repeated in the "Begin" and "End" fields.

Standard practice normalizes a single date as YYYY-MM-DD, not
YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD, with the same date repeated on both sides of the
slash.  Is it valid in ArchivesSpace to have just a "Begin" date and no
"End" date?

I realize that there are options for "Range" and "Single" under "Type," but
these are presented as choices to use *INSTEAD* of "Inclusive Dates" and
"Bulk Dates," not in conjunction with them.

Thanks!
Jaime

-- 

Jaime L. Margalotti
Senior Assistant Librarian
Manuscripts and Archives Department University of Delaware Library
Newark, DE  19717-5267302-831-0554jmargalo at udel.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/archivesspace_users_group/attachments/20140804/df5097f5/attachment.html>