[uf-discuss] [hcite] date-published

[Michael McCracken]

On 2/20/07, Brian Suda <brian.suda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Michael McCracken <michael.mccracken at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is anyone against changing 'date-published' to 'date'?
>
> --- the questions is what is the semantics of 'date'? if you create
> 'date' and use it the date published/updated/copyrighted/etc then
> those all have different semantics.
>
> -brian

I think that our being vague like this would match existing practices.
As discussed earlier on this list, the meanings of dates attached to
publications are pretty fluid - March magazines come out in January,
books are copyrighted in the year after they're published, etc. Most
of the time, the only date that really can be exact is the
date-accessed, which we already want to have as a separate specific
field.

A quick scan through the markup examples we have confirms my
impression that most examples from the web are equally vague about
what the dates they show mean. Our condensed summaries on -examples
often describe them as date-published, but it's not always clear in
the original whether it's published/copyrighted/submitted/etc.

-mike

-- 
Michael McCracken
UCSD CSE PhD Candidate
research: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/~mmccrack/
misc: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/