LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  November 2018

DATETIME November 2018

Subject:

Re: edtf datatype (was RE: Revised EDTF)

From:

"Svensson, Lars" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:15:01 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Dear Ray,

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:59 PM, Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray wrote:
 
>  From: Svensson, Lars
> > Are there any plans to register datatypes for EDTF datestrings in order to
> > transport those in e. g. RDF (à la "2001-34"^^edtf:seasonCode)?
> 
> Glad you mentioned that.
> We registered this several years ago.  http://id.loc.gov/datatypes/edtf/EDTF
> (or in rdf:  http://id.loc.gov/datatypes/edtf/EDTF.rdf )
> 
> We haven't publicized it, but you're free to use it, e.g.   "2001-34"^^edtf:EDTF"
> where  edtf:  is the prefix for  http://id.loc.gov/datatypes/edtf
> 
> There is a slight complication.  http://id.loc.gov/datatypes/edtf  itself is a datatype
> scheme, meaning it is a group of datatypes, four of them, one for edtf in general
> and one for each level.   I am going to try to get this changed.  I don't think there
> needs to be more than one datatype (edtf general) and therefore no scheme.
> 
> If we make this change,  you would instead say:     2001-34"^^someprefix:EDTF
> Where the prefix is for  http://id.loc.gov/datatypes/   (I don't know at this time what
> the recommended prefix will be, because we don't define any other active
> datatypes.)
> I'll keep you posted on this.

Thanks for your reply. I finally got round to have a closer look at the EDTF datatypes and my gut feeling is that they are seriously underspecified, at least if you compare them with the corresponding XSD datatypes.

My proposal would be to have several, more specific datatypes that allow a user to validate EDTF expressions on syntactic and semantic conformance. This would require us to think not only about syntax, but also about value spaces, so that an EDTF parser that encounters "2018-11"^^edtf:season would throw an error saying that "11" is not a valid season code. I _think_ that for some of the Level 0 formats we can re-use the XSD datatypes instead of defining own ones, but when it comes to season codes or uncertain dates (both of which are not specified in XSD) we'd need to figure out something on our own.

Does that make sense to you (or others in this community)?

Best,

Lars 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager