Print

Print


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 ...
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> -James
>>
>> --
>> Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
>> Computing Services, University of Oxford