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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  August 2010

DATETIME August 2010

Subject:

Re: EDTF Features list

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:38:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

I've corrected this. The note now reads:
------------------------------------------------------
Years with more than four digits are valid if approved by profile. The
profile (for example, this specification) must specify the number of digits
and then all extended years must use that number of digits. An extended year
then is any year with greater than four digits, or any year earlier than
0000.

For example suppose this specification says that extended years are six
digits. then:

Any year between 0000 and 9999 is represented with four digits.

Any year later than 9999 is represented with six digits whether it needs
them or not, thus the year 10000 is represented as '010000'.

Any negative date is represented with six digits, whether it needs them or
not. Thus the year -10000 is represented
as '-010000'.

The year zero is represented as '0000'.

( Note that 0000 has the same meaning as 1 BC. There is no zero BC.)
-----------------------------------

Thanks.

--Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ashtongj
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] EDTF Features list

My (electronic) copy of ISO 8601:2004 says (the html tags are added by me to
indicate boldface):

     2.3.8
     <b>expanded representation</b>
     expansion of a representation to allow identification of dates in
     calendar years outside the range [0000] till [9999]

The introduction to the standard explains that square brackets are to
distinguish date/time representations from the text of the standard, and the
square brackets are not part of the representation. Since 0000 is withing
the range 0000 till 9999, I would use four digits for the year zero, not 6.
Also, I am at a loss to understand why you would want to use a negative sign
with the year zero.

The text provides further support for this interpretation in section 3.2.1,
The Gregorian Calendar. It states:

     NOTE In the proleptic Gregorian calendar, the calendar year
     [0000] is a leap year.



On 2010-08-05 6:59 PM, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> " Please see page 7 of ISO 8601:2004."
> I don't think our copies are paged alike, could you cite by section
> instead of page?
>
> Anyway, I think it should have said "The year zero is represented as
> '-000000'." rather than "The year zero is represented as '-000001'."
> And 1 BC would be the same as year zero thus '-000000'. Right?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ashtongj
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 6:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] EDTF Features list
>
> I believe the consolidated table contains an error. Section 2
> subsection "Extension and Precision" rightmost column last bullet says
> "The year zero is represented as '-000001'." But of course the
> notation other than AD/BC or CE/BCE that is most widely known is
> astronomical year numbering, in which the year 0 would be represented
> as 0000 in ISO 8601 notation. It is the year
> 1 BC that would be represented as '-000001'
> when a profile had been agreed to that required six digits for
> expanded year representation.
>
> Please see page 7 of ISO 8601:2004.
>
> Gerard Ashton
>

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