[tei-council] date-stamping <desc>

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> So I'm beginning to think that what we want is not a date-stamp, but
> rather a version number for each canonical <desc>, and a version
> number reference for each translated <desc>. Would that do?
>
>   <desc xml:lang="en" version="2">Fooble fibble</desc>
>   <desc xml:lang="zh-tw" translationOfVersion="1">...</desc>
>
> Of course, if the version number were in a format like 2006-10-09,
> then there's not much difference from a date stamp. So it's the
> criteria for incrementing a version number (or date stamp) that is
> important, probably.
Using @version would be fine. But @lastUpdated buys you
the same, and more, viz the distance of the  relationship
not just the cardinality. The word "lastUpdated" is not
perfect, should be "lastSignificantlyUpdated", of course.

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk