Feature #3618

Use events table for definining "dates of existence"

Added by David Juhasz over 11 years ago. Updated almost 7 years ago.

Status:In progressStart date:
Priority:MediumDue date:
Assignee:José Raddaoui Marín% Done:

0%

Category:-Estimated time:5.00 hours
Target version:-
Sponsored:No Tested version:

Description

Allows specifying start date, end date and date display (i18n) as per other events.

Allows non-contiguous ranges (e.g. 1978 - 1982, 1985-1990)

Better mapping to the EAC-CPF <existDates> [1] values (<date>, <dateRange>, <dateSet>)

[1] => http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/eac/cpf/tagLibrary/cpfTagLibrary.html#d1e3034

[g] Legacy categories: I18N, Form validation


Related issues

Related to AtoM Wishlist - Feature #3676: Implement discrete maintenance events instead of "mainten... New

History

#1 Updated by David Juhasz almost 11 years ago

  • Priority set to Low

[g] Labels added: Priority-Low

#2 Updated by David Juhasz over 10 years ago

  • Target version set to Release 1.3

Roll over to Release 1.3

[g] Labels added: Milestone-Release-1.3

#3 Updated by Jessica Bushey over 9 years ago

  • Target version changed from Release 1.3 to Release 2.1.0

If the event or relationship has inclusive dates use the <dateRange> element, while more complex dates (e.g., date ranges) can be expressed in <dateSet>. Dates of existence for the entity being described are encoded with the <existDates> element. While date and time of a maintenance event in the history of the EAC-CPF instance are <eventDateTime> element.

[g] Labels added: Milestone-Release-2.0
[g] Labels removed: Milestone-Release-1.3
[g] New owner: David Juhasz

#4 Updated by David Juhasz over 9 years ago

  • Assignee changed from David Juhasz to Jesús García Crespo

#5 Updated by David Juhasz over 9 years ago

  • Category set to Data model / ORM
  • Priority changed from Low to Medium
  • Target version changed from Release 2.1.0 to Release 1.4.0
  • Sponsored set to No

#6 Updated by José Raddaoui Marín almost 9 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Jesús García Crespo to Dan Gillean

Hi Dan, the typical questions (:

- For these example dates:

Date: April 2015
Start: 2015-04-01
End: 2015-04-21

Is ok the following EAC export?

<existDates>
  <date>April 2015</date>
  <dateRange>
    <fromDate>2015-04-01</fromDate>
    <toDate>2015-04-21</toDate>
  </dateRange>
</existDates>

- EAC <existDates> can only appear one time within <description>, so, if we have multiple dates events, we'll need something to relate the <date> and the <dateRange> for the same event in the import process.

Thanks!

#7 Updated by José Raddaoui Marín almost 9 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Dan Gillean to José Raddaoui Marín

#8 Updated by Dan Gillean almost 9 years ago

Hi Radda,

This looks good, though I will suggest two small revisions.

1)It might seem like overkill since we are already writing the data following ISO, but I think that we should use @standardDate with our <fromDate> and our <toDate>, because this could be useful depending on where the data is going next - some systems may look to read the date from the attribute. @standardDate is just like @NORMAL in EAD - so as long as the information is ISO compliant, we should write the same data in the field to the @standardDate attribute on export. the attribute won't support ISO 8601 basic though (YYYYMMDD), so we will have to use YYYY-MM-DD or similar variations. See: http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/eac/cpf/tagLibrary/cpfTagLibrary.html#standardDate

2) <date> in EAC is meant to express a single date, not a range - though you are right that, with the way we use our fields, there's no great way to express the human-readable date and keep it in relation to the <fromDate> and <toDate>. So, one way I thought we could at least clarify that they are related is to wrap them in <dateSet>, like this:

<existDates>
 <dateSet>
  <date>April 2015</date>
  <dateRange>
    <fromDate standardDate="2015-04-01">2015-04-01</fromDate>
    <toDate standardDate="2015-04-21">2015-04-21</toDate>
  </dateRange>
 </dateSet>
</existDates>

What do you think? <dateSet> is here: http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/eac/cpf/tagLibrary/cpfTagLibrary.html#d1e2484

Thanks!

#9 Updated by Jesús García Crespo almost 9 years ago

Radda, I've seen your email about your implementation plan for this issue. It looks good, go ahead!

#10 Updated by José Raddaoui Marín almost 9 years ago

Hi Dan,

Are we going to remove dates of existence from the EAD export?

In the email about EAD David said: "Please note that I don't think we should link dates to an authority record, as these only make sense in the context of a particular archival description.". But I'm not sure if this is about this dates.

If we are going to keep it, how should the new export looks?

Thanks!

#11 Updated by José Raddaoui Marín almost 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In progress

#12 Updated by David Juhasz almost 9 years ago

Hi Radda,

No, I didn't mean to remove the dates of existence from EAD, just that we
should not link these elements to an ISAAR record in AtoM via a URL (@href).

#13 Updated by José Raddaoui Marín almost 9 years ago

Thanks David, I misunderstood it.

Then, how should the EAD export/import process look like?

I took a look to the EAD tag library and I've found that we don't have <dateSet>, etc. to use inside the <event> tag. We can use the type attribute for the <date> element to differentiate startDate, endDate and date, but, as we can have more than one dates of existence group, we'll need something to relate those individual dates so we can recreate the dates of existence events.

Thanks!

#14 Updated by Dan Gillean over 7 years ago

I've just recently found this old ticket, and thought I'd post an update - because I'd really like to see us able to handle dates better on authority records. Having controlled fields in place would allow, in the future, for us to have a date range search for actors, based on dates of existence.

This work is not sponsored at the moment, so it's not a priority unfortunately. But I wanted to add notes for when we can return to this in the future.

We have never previously included dates of existence in the EAD - dates of events such as creation, yes, but not dates of existence. The only information you can really keep in there without producing some bizarre EAD are the name and type of entity (based on which tag is used - name, famname, persname, or corpname).

I don't think we should try to start including dates of existence in the EAD now. Users who want that can always export the EAC. EAD3 might give us more options, since it will allow for namespacing and the inclusion of EAC-CPF nested in an EAD3 record. But until then, we should keep it simple.

Issue #5094, in the later comments, outlines some of the changes that are happening in our EAD in AtoM 2.2. In terms of this issue ticket, I don't think we need to touch the EAD or alter how we handle it - just the EAC-CPF, and the fields available in the Actor edit template.

#15 Updated by Dan Gillean about 7 years ago

  • Target version deleted (Release 1.4.0)

#16 Updated by Dan Gillean almost 7 years ago

  • Project changed from Access to Memory (AtoM) to AtoM Wishlist
  • Category deleted (Data model / ORM)

Moved to AtoM wishlist until sponsored for inclusion.

Also available in: Atom PDF