[tei-council] date-stamping <desc>

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Mon Oct 9 11:57:52 EDT 2006

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

More information about the tei-council mailing list