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  November 2010

DATETIME November 2010

Subject:

Re: seasons

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, 19 Nov 2010 10:02:53 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (89 lines)

My take on this discussion is that there will be some users (e.g. Bruce)
happy with nothing more than 'yyyy-ss' for example '2000-21'; and other
users (e.g. Ed) who will want an additional designator, e.g. '2000-21-x',
and that we just need to nail down the designators, and designate one as the
default so that the default form (without the designator) can be used. Do
you agree?

I don't agree that it is necessarily true that "2000 is not before or after
2000-10". Bruce, in his system, is free to design his sorting algorithm such
that the value of 2000, for purposes of sorting, is the first day of that
period, or the last day, i.e. either 2000-01-01 or 2000-12-31. Of course,
the standard is not going to dictate any such rules but any individual
system's sorting algorithm certainly would be free to adopt whatever rules
it pleases.

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 8:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] seasons
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:21:35 -0500, Bruce D'Arcus wrote
>
> >
> > But ...
> >
> > > Its all about precision:
> > > 2000 is not before or after 2000-10
> > > 2000-10 is not before or after 2000-10-12
> > > 2000-24 would, similarly, not be before or after 2000-10-12.
> > > 2000-24 would also not be before or after 2000-10-11
> >
> > Yes, but in a bibliography, you can mix those dates (an author with
> > three cited items: a book with a year, and two journal articles: one
> > of them with a month cover date, and the other with a season cover
> > date), and you need to sort them. So saying something is "not before
> > or after" isn't practical.
>
> Hugh? No No. That's how one defines a sort.
> I'm pointing out how one compares items of different precision here..
> In my date class which I use in my engine I have all kinds of precision
> down to seconds and in the other direction decade (e.g. 1950s) and
> century. The year 1852, for example, belongs to the 1850s and also to
> the 19th century.
>
> 1852 is not before or after the 19th century
> 1852 is not before or after the 1950s
>
> 1853 is not before or after the 19th century
> 1853 is not before or after the 1950s
>
> but
>
> 1852 < (is before) 1853
>
> in C++ with a class called, for example, xDATE
>
> friend int operator < (const xDATE &dt1, const xDATE &dt2);
> friend int operator <= (const xDATE &dt1, const xDATE &dt2);
> friend int operator > (const xDATE &dt1, const xDATE &dt2);
> friend int operator >= (const xDATE &dt1, const xDATE &dt2);
> friend int operator == (const xDATE &dt1, const xDATE &dt2);
> friend int operator != (const xDATE &dt1, const xDATE &dt2);
>
> from which a simple sort can be derived.
>
> My implementation currently does not have quarter or seasons but once
> we develop a standard for encoding them I'd naturally extend things..
>
> For precision--- in my implementation--- I think I'd probably take a
> pragmatic approach and align all the types as equivalent precisions
> given the feeling that they tend to be used in vaguer manners than the
> definition sets. This would let me handle them as quarters with some
> fuzziness.. But.. I have to give it some more thought.
>
>
> --
>
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts Office Leo
> (R&D):
> Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
> Federal Republic of Germany
> 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