[GILS Logo]

gils: RE: Time Period Elements in the GILS Profile.

gils: RE: Time Period Elements in the GILS Profile.

RE: Time Period Elements in the GILS Profile.

Turner Fay (fst@ITS.NLC-BNC.CA)
Wed, 04 Sep 1996 14:50:00 -0700 (PDT) 

Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 14:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Turner Fay <fst@ITS.NLC-BNC.CA>
Subject: RE: Time Period Elements in the GILS Profile.
To: GILS Forum <gils@cni.org>
Message-Id: <322DFA0A@its.nlc-bnc.ca>


Margaret,

This inconsistency only occurs in the GILS Abstract Record Structure, and 
not in the GILS Core elements definitions which says nothing about the 
repeatability of the two forms (structured and text)  in which these dates 
can occur.

Like you I don't think that the individual subfields should be repeatable 
but rather the whole field with the two subfields should be repeated to 
represent different dates or date spans.

Fay


Fay Turner
<fst@its.nlc-bnc.ca>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have a question about Version 2 of the Application Profile for GILS.
>
> 1. The element "availableTimePeriod and its subelements
> "availableTimeStructured" and "availableTimeTextual" are all listed as
> repeatable.
>
> 2. The element "timePeriod" is repeatable and its subelements
> "timePeriodStructured" and timePeriodTextual" are non-repeatable.
>
> In these two cases, the repeatability of the subelements appears to be
> inconsistent.
>
> It seems to me that the two subelements are alternative
> representations for the same thing and should be non-repeatable in
> both cases.
>
> Does anyone else have any opinions?
>
> Margaret St. Pierre

[CNI Home Page]