<div dir="ltr"><div><div>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. <br>
<br>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<span style="font-weight:normal"> of "bulk" or "inclusive." However, </span><span style="font-weight:normal"><unitdatestructured></span> will offer more granularity and have as its possible children: <daterange>, <dateset>, or <datesingle>. <br>
<br><pre class=""><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">A normalized <datesingle> would looke like: <br></span></span></span><br><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><unitdatestructured</span> <span style="color:rgb(0,0,102)">unitdatetype</span>=<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">"inclusive"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">><br>
</span></span><datesingle</span> <span style="color:rgb(0,0,102)">standarddate</span>=<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">"1955-08-25"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span>1955 August 25<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></datesingle<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span></span><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></unitdatestructured</span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span><br><br>A normalized <daterange> would look like:<br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span></span></span><br><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><unitdatestructured</span> <span style="color:rgb(0,0,102)">unitdatetype</span>=<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">"inclusive"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span><daterange<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span></span>
<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><fromdate</span> <span style="color:rgb(0,0,102)">standarddate</span>=<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">"1950-08-01"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span>1950 August 1<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></fromdate<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span></span>
<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><todate</span> <span style="color:rgb(0,0,102)">standarddate</span>=<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">"1955-09-25"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span>1955 September 25<span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></todate<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">><br>
</daterange><br></span></span></span><span style="color:rgb(0,153,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"></unitdatestructured</span><span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">"</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">></span></span></span><br>
</pre><br>Getting back to my original issue (please see message below) ... EAD3 is allowing you to have a <unitdatestructured> with the @unitdatetype of "inclusive" <b>AND</b> 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" <b>OR</b> "single." Since EAD2002 removed the "single" value from the "type" "attribute, "single" dates have always been defined as "inclusive."<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br></div>Many Thanks!<br></div>Jaime<br><div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Jaime Margalotti</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmargalo@udel.edu">jmargalo@udel.edu</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:55 AM<br>Subject: Normalizing Single "Inclusive Dates"<br>To: <a href="mailto:archivesspace_users_group@lyralists.lyrasis.org">archivesspace_users_group@lyralists.lyrasis.org</a><br>
<br><br><div dir="ltr"><div><div>In EAD 2002, the "single" date attribute disappeared and we were left with "inclusive" and "bulk." What would have been "single" was now "inclusive." <br>
<br></div>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. <br>
<br></div><div>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?<br>
<br></div><div>I realize that there are options for "Range" and "Single" under "Type," but these are presented as choices to use <b>INSTEAD</b> of "Inclusive Dates" and "Bulk Dates," not in conjunction with them. <br>
<br></div><div>Thanks!<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><div>Jaime<br></div><div><div><div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><pre cols="72">Jaime L. Margalotti
Senior Assistant Librarian
Manuscripts and Archives Department University of Delaware Library
Newark, DE 19717-5267
<a href="tel:302-831-0554" value="+13028310554" target="_blank">302-831-0554</a>
<a href="mailto:jmargalo@udel.edu" target="_blank">jmargalo@udel.edu</a></pre></div>
</div></div></div></font></span></div>
</div></div></div></div></div>