Closed cannedit closed 7 years ago
I’ve been thinking a bit more about your suggestion. I remain reluctant to adopt the specific solution you suggest for a few reasons.
1) I agree with Regina’s argument that any attribute on an element should be applicable to most use cases for that element, not a specific subset. <part>
is explicitly for identifying a substring in a controlled term – it’s not specific to dates.
2) We moved away from the@normal
attribute in EAD3. The only date elements where it is allowed is <date>
and <unitdate>
- this was specifically to accommodate legacy usage of @normal
as requested by Kerstin Arnold. Otherwise we shifted toward the EAC-CPF model of using @standarddate
, @fromdate
, and @todate
wherever possible. I’d be reluctant to introduce a new use for the old date normalization model.
3) It would introduce a difference between the use of <part>
in EAC and <part>
in EAD3 – they are quite similar currently.
That said, I see a strong use case for allowing date strings in name authorities to be machine actionable. My current thinking is that the best solution would be to add <date>
as an optional sibling to <part>
. This would give you the option to use @normal
for date segments, would prevent changes to <part>
, and would still prevent mixed content in access term elements.
Ok, I see your point (and Regina’s and Ruth’s ☺). So let’s not discuss this any further and go for this. Then the current example of the EAD3 tag library for <part/>
would be like this, right?
<persname encodinganalog="600" relator="creator" rules="RDA" identifier="http://viaf.org/viaf/23746712">
<part localtype="surname">Casey</part>
<part localtype="givenname">Silas</part>
<part localtype="dates"><date @normal="1807/1882">1807-1882</date></part>
</persname>
That would be fine with me, because then we can still re-use the part of our code which runs on “old fashioned” date normalization, which was probably what Kerstin Arnold was aiming at :-).
Wim,
I was thinking of making <date>
an optional sibling of <part>
, not a child. so something more like this:
`
<date @normal="1807/1882">1807-1882 `
Would that work? I'm reluctant to change <part>
's mixed content model, but I'd need to think about it some more.
When we are in a position to make changes to EAD3 we can revisit this, so we'll keep the issue open.
So actually making <date/>
a child of <persname/>
instead of a child of <part/>
?
Ehmm, sorry, no, that doesn't work, because I would like to have more <part/>
's including dates within a <persname/>
(and <corpname/>
and <famname/>
), like for instance having as @localtype "birthdate", "marriagedate" and "deathdate" (and others).
@cannedit Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that. Then I agree the best solution will be adding <date>
as an optional mixed content child of <part>
.
Closing - replaced with #505
My use case for this: I intend to use the following tagging:
but unfortunately I can’t normalise the date like this: