Date publication for ancients books

[xfiles]

Im make a ebook with Sigil from a ancient book, the date of publication for this book is 1552. But the most oldie date can i set, in the metadata Sigil form, is 1752.

¿why?

I have a manualy fix; unzip the epub and edit the "content.opf" file the line:

<dc:date opf:event="publication">1552-01-01</dc:date>

Save and zipit and renameit again to ".epub".

• ¿why i cant set date of publication before to 1752?
• ¿how i can doing without makeit manualy?

Maybe the metadata field for the date of publication will work better if are a open fields for capture the data witout the closed option of the system calendar.

[Toxaris]

Open an issue on the tracker. That is the best advice I can give you.

Originally Posted by xfiles

But the most oldie date can i set, in the metadata Sigil form, is 1752.

¿why?

I don't know why Sigil can't set a year older than 1752 but a clue might be had if you consider that 1752 was the year that the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and the Eastern portion of what is now the United States. This supplanted the old Julian calendar.

[cybmole]

books were published in 1552 ? - really ??

what was on the best-seller list for that year ???

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by shall1028

I don't know why Sigil can't set a year older than 1752 but a clue might be had if you consider that 1752 was the year that the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and the Eastern portion of what is now the United States. This supplanted the old Julian calendar.

Dublin Core (i.e. "dc:") is using ISO 8601, from Wikipedia:

ISO 8601 fixes a reference calendar date to the Gregorian calendar of 1875-05-20 as the date the Convention du Mètre (Metre Convention) was signed in Paris. However, ISO calendar dates before the Convention are still compatible with the Gregorian calendar all the way back to the official introduction of the Gregorian calendar on 1582-10-15. Earlier dates, in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, may be used by mutual agreement of the partners exchanging information. The standard states that every date must be consecutive, so usage of the Julian calendar would be contrary to the standard (because at the switchover date, the dates would not be consecutive).

For most purposes, the proleptic Gregorian calendar is "good enough" so the only requirement should be a 4 digit year. I assume book software (Calibre, for example) just uses a textual sort on dates, so anything after 0000-01-01 should work.

[xfiles]

Originally Posted by cybmole

books were published in 1552 ? - really ??

what was on the best-seller list for that year ???

Best Seller is not it everything in the life and the books are printed from long time before they appeared ebook readers.

"A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies[1] (Spanish: Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias) is an account written by the Spanish Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas in 1542 (published in 1552) about the mistreatment of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas in colonial times and sent to then Prince Philip II of Spain."

Wikipedia

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by cybmole

books were published in 1552 ? - really ??

what was on the best-seller list for that year ???

Probably the Bible. The printing press had been around more than 100 years by 1552 and was in wide use.

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by xfiles

Best Seller is not it everything in the life and the books are printed from long time before they appeared ebook readers.

it was a joke :-)

so is wondering what % of the population could even read in 1552 ? let alone afford to buy books :-)

not your average peasant - that's for sure.

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Probably the Bible. The printing press had been around more than 100 years by 1552 and was in wide use.

not sure when the King James remix was released but up till then did'nt it have to be printed in Latin ?

[cybmole]

"A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies[1] (Spanish: Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias) is an account written by the Spanish Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas in 1542 (published in 1552) about the mistreatment of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas in colonial times and sent to then Prince Philip II of Spain"

so number of readers = 1 ( assuming he bothered to read it)

number of copies published in English - approximately zero.

sorry for taking the p**s - I just don't get why being able to set the date of this book accurately in sigil matters ( to anyone but the OP ).

why not just put epub version first published in 2011

[crutledge]

Originally Posted by cybmole

why not just put epub version first published in 2011

I was under the impression that the date of publication was the date the eBook was published.

Am I wrong?

[daubnet]

Originally Posted by crutledge

I was under the impression that the date of publication was the date the eBook was published.

Am I wrong?

TL;DR: You are right.

The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (shorthand: DC, or DCMI) is a standardized method of describing metadata. In this case, there are two works that could be described by the DC data: the original and the E-Book, with the latter being a derivative work of the former.

The DCMI is following a "one-to-one rule". This rule means that an any metadata should describe the object it accompanies, and just that object. A different object shall have its own metadata. The DC Usage Guide specifically notes on the created property:

Note that the "one-to-one" rule requires that the creation date be that of the resource being described, not any early version from which the current resource is derived.

There are DC properties available that can specify such a relation between two works (specifically isFormatOf and isVersionOf), but their specification is lacking detail, and those properties are not widely supported (as far as I can see).

So it is my interpretation of the DC standard, that an E-Book version of an old document should have a "creation" date of 2011, and a "published"/"issued" date of 2011, if it is actually published.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by cybmole

not sure when the King James remix was released but up till then did'nt it have to be printed in Latin ?

by 1552 there were many versions out there. I have an ebook on the mobileread download area on the history of the English translation of the Bible. The first English one was the Tyndale NT in 1524. The church tried to burn them as was the practice of earlier times before the printing press but this time it just increased sales. They would buy all the store had and burn them. The next week a new supply arrived. There was a Polygot version of several version in parallel, Latin, Greek, etc. There were German, French and likely others by that date. The Matthew Bible followed the Tyndale version, the Great Bible by Coverdale was published in 1539. The Bible in Latin as published about 1450 as the first full book off the printing press. Luther's German Bible as about 1520 or so.

The KJV was released in 1611.
see: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=108163

Dale

[Toxaris]

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

well yes - but I thought the previous post was the most interesting in the thread so far - & the OP lost interest ages ago.

the original question seemed daft but the thread did prompt me to re-check stuff like "when was the printing press invented"

I hate to think of precious sigil development resource being wasted on a pre 1700 date fix though.