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  October 2010

DATETIME October 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, 8 Oct 2010 16:43:14 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (51 lines)

Good question about century, Dave. (Finally had a chance to think about it,
sorry, been out two weeks.)

I think "first century, AD" is straightforward, it's '00'.  The guidance
from 8601 is not explicit but seems to strongly imply that the century of
any four-digit (AD) year is represented by its first two digits, so '00'
would represent the century for the years 0001 through 0099.

The second question is a problem.  8601 gives no guidance whatsoever that I
can find. I'm perfectly willing to defer to anyone here who knows the
authoritative answer. in lieu of that, I'm going to offer a tentative
answer: '-00'.  

I have updated the table to reflect these.

My reasoning is as follows. I think it is safe to conclude that we can
narrow the choices to '-00' and '-01'. One could argue against '-00' on the
basis that zero is neither positive nor negative and could argue in favor of
'-01' on the basis of mathematical calculation.  However, I suspect that
these centuries are not used much for mathematical calculation, and that
'00' and '-01' could be viewed as two different strings, rather than
integers. And I think that using '-00' is logically consistent with the way
century is derived for AD years (i.e. via truncation).  

But if someone has a convincing argument to the contrary I'll change it.

--Ray


-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Reser, Dave
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] EDTF Features list

Ray--

Thanks for providing the features table.  We think it solves almost all of
our problems, but we have a question on recording two specific centuries.
Section 2, line 201 for Century indicates how to record centuries (e.g., 19
for the 20th century), but we are perplexed about:

First century  (AD/ACE)
First century (BC/BCE)

Any advice is appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave Reser
LC Policy & Standards  Division

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