Creation/Modification times and Revision Numbers

Stuart G. Poss Stuart.Poss at USM.EDU
Tue Aug 15 16:16:01 CEST 2000

Bryan Heidorn wrote:

> Yes, perhaps there are really two different fields
> Treatment creation time and revision number. I think time alone is not enough
> since one can not tell from that if the treatment has changed since it was
> last
> viewed or used (to create higher level treatments).


> Do you instead mean time created and time last revised, as well as revision
> number?

It is conceivable that different systems (servers) might have various, slighly
different versions of the constructional software running on them that could, at
least in principle, produce two different version numbers even when
"simultaneously" generating elements of the same document (treatment?).

Don't we need to keep in mind that both "collections [attributable to a unique
source?]" and "treatments [virtual collections generated from multiple sources
with respect to specific <processing> instructions?]" [or visa versa?]  may be
dynamic in distributed environments?

I too remain unsure how the concepts and scope of terms "treatment" and
"document" and "collection" are being used (defined) as this discussion emerges.
It might be useful for us to maintain a glossary, perhaps with qualifiers (ie
sensu Bryan or sensu Kevin, etc), as such issues arise.  We can then at least
know whether we agree/disagree with respect to what definitions required or with
respect to how the definitions are used.

> >
> >| The current standard makes a relatively weak standard that the contributor
> >| codes are unique to the treatment. I think we need to use a broader
> >| definition. The should be unique to a collection at least.
> >
> >Again we have a definitional problem and I think my treatment = your
> >collection.
> >
> >| Attribution:
> >| Must this be a contributor? If so this information should be handles as a
> >| property of <CONTRIBUTOR ROLE=PRINCIPAL|COPRINCIPAL> or as another tag of
> >|     .... <ROLE>PRINCIPLE</ROLE>....
> >| Suggestions?
> >
> >Yes, it could be done like this, but what would be wrong with doing it the
> >other way - seems somehow neater to me, and I can't see much inefficiency.
> It could
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   P. Bryan Heidorn    Graduate School of Library and Information Science
>   pheidorn at   University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>   (V)217/ 244-7792    501 East Daniel St., Champaign, IL  61820-6212
>   (F)217/ 244-3302

More information about the tdwg-content mailing list