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:

Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:21:35 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (101 lines)

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Edward C. Zimmermann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:19:55 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote
>> I just want to be sure I'm clear: When you sort months and seasons
>> together, you are ok with a scheme where ALL seasons sort AFTER all months?
>
> No. That's absolutely intolerable! We're sorting dates and not numbers! That's
> would be equivalent to sorting 2000  before 1923-23-10.

Come on; that's not at all "equivalent." And given eccentricities of
bibliographic styles, I can absolutely imagine there are different
rules for sorting seasons vis-a-vis month-days.

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.

If not a structured date component, the other alternative is what a
format like RIS does: treat season and other similar as unstructured
date components.

> (and so one, mapping what we assume about the start/end of the seasons without
> the optional type modifiers)
>
> 2000-24 > 2000-23
> 2000-23 > 2000-22
> 2000-21 > 2000-1
> 2000-21 > 2000-2
> (and so on, mapping what we assume about the start/end of the seasons without
> the optional type modifiers)
>
> I've suggested type modifiers such as those to specify meteorological etc.
>
> Same with quarters that on additional thought I'd tend to not want to fold
> into seasons so 25, 26, 27, 28 and with optional type modifiers)
>
> 2000-25 would be the first quarter of 2000. Without a modifier I'd say we
> assume the start is Jan.
>
> 2000-25 is not before or after 2000-1
> 2000-25 is not before or after 2000-2
> 2000-25 is not before or after 2000-3
>
> etc.
>
> Note: Modifiers would not be secondary sorts but apply to the sort itself.
>
> Example:
> Should 25-1 denote the 1st normative fiscal quarter (defined as starting 1
> April) then clearly
>
> 2000-25-1 > 2000-25
> 2000-25-1 is not before or after 2000-26
>
> with more information we might have a fiscal year that starts in Jan. so we'd
> have something like
>
> 2000-25-1-1 (2000-25-1-1 is, of course, equivalent to 2000-25 in sort)
>
> 2000-25-1-1 < 2000-25-1
> 2000-25-1-1 is not before or after 2000-25
> etc.
>
> Using this same system:
> 2000-25-1-2 would overlap 2000-25 and 2000-26. Typically one would sort it
> then after 2000-25 but before 2000-26. etc. etc. etc.
>
> Same as in sorting a Summer that starts 21 June. So the sake of this lets
> assume that this is the default (just to save writing).
>
> Its starting in the last days of the 3rd quarter so
>
> 2000-22 > 2000-6
> 2000-22 is not before or after 2000-7
> etc.
>
> The only issue, as I mentioned in a previous post, is the season overlapping
> the year mark due to the lack of agreed upon standardization for the
> denotation of its year. In a library environment this should never pose a
> problem since there is the additional information: a French journal arriving
> in the Jan 2011 with the cover Winter 2011 would be encoded as 2010.
>
> Loads of little details etc. need to be worked out...
>
> The whole point of this exercise is to outline that we can define a sort that
> works--- one that's perhaps easier to "standardize", I'd suggest, than sorts
> of titles of books.

Right.

Bruce

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