Dear Lou (cc TEI-L),
Thank you for the follow-up. I agree that <date> would be ambiguous. In the Repertorium project we've had a special element for the liturgical date of an msItem since our P3 days in the mid-1990s (we called it <churchCal>). It isn't necessarily part of a textual title that appears in the manuscript entry itself, although that is common. Functionally I think of it as metadata, rather than textual data, and therefore part of the description, rather than the transcription.
From: Lou Burnard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:00 PM
To: Birnbaum, David J
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: reference dates in <msItemStruct>
My guess is that we felt that "date" was rather an ambiguous concept.
In this case, <docDate> would clearly be wrong, since it is defined as holding the date something visibly claims to have been written on.
If I understand the use case correctly, it sounds like a kind of title
-- this is the item relating to this date (sermon for the 3rd sunday after Pentecost, kind of thing). So I'd tag it as a <date> inside a <title>. But James's suggestion works too.
On 16/08/11 17:51, Birnbaum, David J wrote:
> Dear James (cc TEI-L),
> Thank you for the quick response. Whatever were we thinking when we left that out?! Sigh ...
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:53 AM, "James Cummings"<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 16/08/11 15:10, Birnbaum, David J wrote:
>>> Dear TEI-L,
>>> I'm preparing a P5 manuscript description of a menologion, a
>>> medieval collection of readings associated with specific calendar
>>> dates (month and day of the month). When I look at
>>> the contents permitted in<msItemStruct> (as well as<msItem>),
>>> I don't see<date>. What is the P5-approved way to indicate that a
>>> particular reading is associated with a particular date of the year?
>> I would probably embed them in a<note> with a @type attribute
>> indicating the special nature of this note, a formulaic phrasing and
>> an child<date> element. I'm not saying that is at all a good
>> solution, but probably what I would do because using<docDate>, which
>> is allowed, seems somehow more abusive or non-standard.
>> I've not got a good solution.
>> Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
>> Computing Services, University of Oxford