Closed rockivist closed 10 years ago
I don't see the necessity. We have @normal for unitdate, date and the controlaccess elements also in EAD 2002. Has there been a confusion mentioned in the EAD 2002 comments due to that? It's all about providing a normalised version of what is given in the accompanying element, so, I'd say, the attribute is serving the same purpose in all these cases, isn't it?
Furthermore, we kept unitdate with @normal in addition to the structured unitdate elements also with the aim to avoid migration issues for these. If we'd now change the attribute just here, that would hamper this goal.
I agree with Kerstin, the attribute serves the same role, normalization of the data contained in the element. I see no great advantage in distinguishing the too, and some downside in breaking with existing practice, for which, as Kerstin notes, there does not appear to be much confusion.'
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Kerstin Arnold notifications@github.comwrote:
I don't see the necessity. We have @normal https://github.com/normalfor unitdate, date and the controlaccess elements also in EAD 2002. Has there been a confusion mentioned in the EAD 2002 comments due to that? It's all about providing a normalised version of what is given in the accompanying element, so, I'd say, the attribute is serving the same purpose in all these cases, isn't it?
Furthermore, we kept unitdate with @normal https://github.com/normal in addition to the structured unitdate elements also with the aim to avoid migration issues for these. If we'd now change the attribute just here, that would hamper this goal.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/SAA-SDT/EAD-Revision/issues/441#issuecomment-39058424 .
OK, you both make convincing cases. Closing.
The first is for date normalization, the latter is for providing authority versions of unnormalized access terms. My thought is to rename the former @normaldate and keep the latter as it is.