Start/end date not appearing in display of event cycles

Project:RUcore/NJDH/Partner Portal Search
Version:0-anytime
Component:Searching - Service Agent
Category:specification
Priority:normal
Assigned:martyb
Status:Moved to JIRA
Description

Please refer to rutgers-lib:44005. (http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3PK0DFZ) In the exhibit event cycle, the display should have an approx. start date and an end date, valued at 2013-11-01, and 2013-11-14, respectively. This isn't appearing in the brief display and only lists the start date, as the 'date.'

I feel like if 'approximate' is the value, it should read 'Approximate start date' and 'Approximate end date.' Regardless, it should at the very least be populating two separate fields with 'start date' and 'end date' somehow involved.

Thanks for resolving!

Comments

#1

Assigned to:Anonymous» rmarker

Rhonda,

What do you think?

#2

Project:RUcore Website» RUcore/NJDH/Partner Portal Search
Version:8.x» 7-x
Component:User interface» Searching - Service Agent

#3

Assigned to:rmarker» mbweber

This is a useful suggestion. I'm adding some of my opinions here.

If there is both a "start" and "end" period in the descriptive event, it would be preferable to have both dates display after a single "Date" label, e.g., 2010-2011.

Better: have the dates display in a standard notation such as November 11, 2010-November 14, 2010.

Even better: if the dates have a qualifier of "approximate", include the term "approximately" before the date, as in this example:
Date: approximately November 11, 2010-approximately November 14, 2010.

However, in order to assure that the coding work is consistently applied, I am assigning this to MDWG and asking them to look at all the specified descriptive event "types" to determine how multiple events (start and end) should be applied, and if there is agreement about the display and application of terms for the qualifiers (approximately, inferred, questionable).

#4

Assigned to:mbweber» rmarker

Per 12/12/14 MDWG meeting RM will report. Will assign to developers.

#5

Version:7-x» 7.6
Category:bug report» specification
Assigned to:rmarker» chadmills

The Metadata Working Group discussed at its meeting 12/12/2014. This confirms and expands on the Date Element Specification at <a href="https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/ref/spc_sawg_r5_2_date_element_requirements.pdf" title="https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/ref/spc_sawg_r5_2_date_element_requirements.pdf">https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/collab/ref/spc_sawg_r5_2_date_eleme...</a>.

That specification stated that if the qualifier=approximate, supply the character string 'ca. [space]' immediately before the date(s). We'd like to modify that particular part of the specification, but adhere to the rest in the RUcore DISPLAYS section.

qualifier=approximate: supply the character string 'approximately [space]' immediately before the date, e.g., approximately 1984
qualifier=exact: do not supply additional characters, e.g., 1984
qualifier=inferred: supply square brackets around the date, e.g., [1984]
qualifier=questionable: supply a question mark after the date, e.g., 1984?

If there is a point attribute with both "start" and "end" values, display both of them in the same display field with a hyphen between them, e.g. (following the above patterns for qualifiers):
approximately 1861-approximately 1865
1861-1865
[1861]-[1865]
1861?-1865?

In addition, it is preferable to display detailed dates in standard notation "March 15, 1993" rather than 1993-03-15. Examples:
approximately February 2009
November 12, 1946
[December 1959]
January 2001?

#6

Version:7.6» 7-x
Assigned to:chadmills» martyb

Marty,

I don't think this request will require a code change, just configuration changes to the construct for date. Please let me know otherwise and feel free to implement on test and production when ready.

Thanks,
Chad

#7

Status:active» fixed

The Related Publication (rulib) and Descriptive Event (mods) constructs have been updated on the production system to now display both start and end dates as well as the qualifier notation as described by rmarker on Dec. 15. Displaying the dates in standard notation will have to wait until version 2 of XSLT, that has regular expression pattern matching capabilities, is installed. The reason for this is that there are currently 4 types of date encoding available for Descriptive Event dates, with one of them (w3cdtf) having 6 different options, so regular expression pattern matching capability is necessary.

#8

Version:7-x» 7.6
Assigned to:martyb» matthew.gallagher
Status:fixed» test

#9

Assigned to:matthew.gallagher» chadmills

So, I'm pretty sure this isn't working properly. Please take a look at the descriptive events metadata for this record: <a href="https://rucore-test.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/203053/" title="https://rucore-test.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/203053/">https://rucore-test.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/203053/</a>

The record shows '2014' as the date of the data life cycle event in the initial description box. Then if you look at the complete record, you can see that '2014' is actually the end date and the start date is getting buried at the bottom of the descriptive events metadata.

Also, terms like 'approximately' or '?' aren't appearing in either the 'date created' value or the 'date' value within the descriptive event.

#10

Assigned to:chadmills» martyb

#11

Assigned to:martyb» matthew.gallagher

In R7.6, a change was implemented in WMS to allow entry of an end date in a descriptive event without a start date. That means there can be a start date only, an end date only, or an end date could be entered first and a start date later, putting the dates in reverse order in the metadata. The DateTime displays in the Descriptive Event (mods) and Related Publication (rulib) constructs (which display as Data Life Cycle Events) had to be rewritten to accommodate this change.

Please test again.

#12

Assigned to:matthew.gallagher» martyb
Status:test» active

The specific problem is fixed for the descriptive event, but I think the displays for the way the 'dateCreated' is formatted is rather problematic. I'm not sure if the MDWG already discussed this, (if they haven't then reassign to mbweber & MDWG) but take a look at this record:

<a href="https://rucore-test.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/203086/" title="https://rucore-test.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/203086/">https://rucore-test.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/203086/</a>

The date created in the brief display reads: 2013-07-24-2014 (which is super confusing)

whereas the complete record is as follows:

DateCreated (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = approximate); (point = start)
2013-07-24
DateCreated (point = end); (encoding = w3cdtf); (qualifier = questionable)
2014

#13

There are two problems here:

1. The production system date constructs have been fixed to display points and qualifiers correctly. However, not all constructs in the test and staging systems are in sync (e.g., Date Created). That needs to be fixed.

2. There is still the problem that a date display could be confusing, such as if there is a start and end point and one date has a month and day in addition to a year and the other has just a year. For example,
<dateIssued qualifier="questionable" point="end">1894</dateIssued>
<dateIssued qualifier="approximately" point="start">1893-12-11</dateIssued>
would display as:
approximately 1893-12-11-1894?
(Note that dates may be less confusing when we can display them in standard notation such as December 11, 1893, but the example above may continue to be somewhat confusing because it would be displayed as:
approximately December 11, 1893-1894?).
Another solution might be using " to " in place of "-" when a range is displayed, e.g.:
approximately 1893-12-11 to 1894? or approximately December 11, 1893 to 1894?

#14

Version:7.6» 7-x

This isn't release specific, so I am moving to a .x version.

#15

Yes, please use standard notation for detailed dates, that is: December 11, 1868 (not 1868-12-11), or February 1971 (not 1971-02).

Use the hyphen for a date range, e.g., December 11, 1893-1894? While it is possible that there are a few date ranges that mix detailed date with YYYY only, they are very few. For the vast majority of dates recorded, using a hyphen for a date range is easily understood.

Please assign to mbweber when fixed so that the MDWG can test.

#16

Version:7-x» 8.x

#17

Version:8.x» 0-anytime

#18

Status:active» Moved to JIRA

https://jira.ess.rutgers.edu/browse/RUC-248

Back to top