LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.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  February 2010

DATETIME February 2010

Subject:

Re: Date Precision, ambiguous dates and ..

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:56:03 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

Ed, I've been reading through your message trying to break it down into 
concrete issues.  Let me know if you think I've come close.


1.  How do you represent "19th century" ?

First look at http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/proposals.html  number 
2.  Will we be working on some vocabulary to represent standard periods?  Or 
can we just say that the 19th century is a date range:  1801/1900.


2.  Precision
"But what about ca. 19th century? Is 1790 an element of that set?"
I assume here you mean you are asserting that a particular year is 
approximately within the 19th century
 (as in #9,  http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/proposals.html)

Back up.  First consider the simpler case where  you specify an approximate 
year,  ~1964. Clearly there is a simple requirement to do this, without the 
need (or burden) to specify any precision.  But if you want to specfy a 
precision, for example "within three years" then you are no longer 
specifying a year you are specifying a range. In proposal number 18 you 
might represent this as [1961/1967]

But when you say "approximately the 19th century" I'm not sure what you 
mean: (a) could be the 19th century, but perhaps the 18th or 20th; or (b) 
the event occured approximately within the 19th century but could have been 
a few years before the beginning or end.

I'll assume the latter.  I think we need to resolve the question in #1 (will 
we be working on a vocabularly to represent standard periods) before we can 
make any progress on this.


3.  Citing a period, even when the dates of that period are not know or are 
in question.

So in your example, you want to cite "the Reign of Horus Nynetjer".  While 
the actual period of his reign is only approximately known and is disputed, 
that's irrelevant for your purposes, you are citing that period, whenever it 
was.


4. Start of day between (e.g.) Hebrew and Julian

Is this really an issue we want to deal with?


5. Precision/data quality
I don't understand what you mean here by data quality, unless you simply 
mean adding a precision parameter to the format.  I would like to hear 
opinions from others on whether we should take off in this direction.


Ed, thanks for your comments.

--Ray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:50 AM
Subject: [DATETIME] Date Precision, ambiguous dates and ..


> Picking up on the substance of ambiguous dates the current problems with 
> ISO
> Date is that its limited to at worst year precision.
>  The date 1900 can mean the YEAR 1900 but not the 20th century.
>  Workaround: its really a date range.
>
>  But what about ca. 19th century? Is 1790 an element of that set?
>
>  First Step: Think of ways to extend an encoding to include its precision.
>
>  Dates like    2007-12-11   have implicitly day precision
>                2007-12      " month precision
>                2007         year precision
>  But how to encode century precision? Or other even more coarse sieves?
>
>  Second step; Think of ways to extend the encoding to include its 
> qualitative
>  certainty or authority. This goes hand in hand with precision.
>
>  Example:
>      The reign of Horus Nynetjer-- thought to have been the third ruler of
>      the Second Egyptian Dynasty. Some scholars place him before Weneg and
>      ofter after. He seemed to have ruled for at least 35 years but may 
> have
>      ruled for 47 years.
>
> This may be tied into the thought of allowing alternative calendars such
> as Chinese, Hebrew or Egyptian calendars perhaps even Dynastic. Alone the
> issue of the start of a day between Hebrew and Julian is significant---
> Hebrew starts at local Sundown (worse still Sundown as per a given local
> authority and there are often more one with differences of 5 min. or more)
> while Julian starts at 00:00 (Midnight). In the Hebrew calendar hours are
> divided into 1080 halakim (corresponding to a 1/72 degree of celestial
> rotation) and so we also have a non-decimal unit of precision.
>
> I think a solution would provide the mechanism also to address those
> specifications where the the endpoint of a range is another range. Using
> the proposal example:
> "The festival will begin 12th March, 2003, and end between 19 March and 20
>  March, 2003."
>
> Here we have a range where the start is well defined with day precision
> but the end well defined within 2-day precision.
>
> Alternatively we define dates as ranges with well defined implicit
> precision as reduced to the single date, e.g. the date range
> "During 12 Sept 1952" reduces to the date 12 Sept 1952 with day precision
> or 19520912 (which is implicitly day precise).
>
> Date := {DateStart,DateEnd[,Precision:DataQuality]}
>
> My first instinct would be to suspect that viewing dates as temporal 
> ranges
> with precision and data quality MIGHT be the most pragmatic approach.
>
>     1
> --
>
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
> http://www.nonmonotonic.net
> Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967 

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

August 2019
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