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: Proposal to change unknown marker from 'u' to 'x'

From:

Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:45:37 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (86 lines)

Edward C. Zimmermann wrote:

> Ranges are quite well defined in the ISO specification.

Could you please summarize the exact specification, so we all known what
we are talking about?

> Technically also year, month, week, day and hour precisions are specifiable.
 > But we want, perhaps other precisions such as decade and century..
and some
 > fuzziness and uncertainty. That's where these ?, u, ~, [] and {} enter
 > the scene for date.
>
> These can then be applied to ranges as well....

But not based on implicit assumptions an vague ideas.

> We already have Glob with patterns such as
>
> [123] to match 1, 2 or 3
> [0-9] to match 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9
> [^123] to match anything but 1,2 or 3.
>
> and () for grouping.

You should *not* full regular expressions without a serious mathematical
treatment of the underlying model.

> '156?-12-25'
> December 25 sometime during the 1560s ('?' := questionable)

But I would read this as December 25 in a questionable year that is
assumed to be 156.

> to contrast to:
>
> '156u-12-25'
>
> Which would be December 25 in the 1560s, but it is not certain which year ('u'
> := unknown)

Which can also be expressed as

[1560,1561,1562,1563,1564,1565,1566,1567,1568,1569]-12-25

right? By the way I don't like the overloading of the minus sign, so
instead of

[1560-1569]-12-25

The abbreviation should be

[1560..1569]-12-25

> The question is: Do we want to allow (as in Glob) things like:
>
> 2005-06-1[5-8] (as equivalent to 2005-06-[15-18] )

Defintely not, and I'd prefer 2005-06-[15..18].

> And how about
>
> 2004-0[1,2,3]-[2,3][0-9]
>
> [Feb has only 28 or, in leap years, 29 days so there is no 30 Feb and no month
> has 32 or more days]

These will all be enough:

2004-[1,2,3]-uu
2004-[1,2,3]-xx
2004-[1,2,3]-[1..31]

Unless you prepend an 'E' for extension times, there is no February 30.

Jakob

P.S: We definitely need to define a formal grammar (e.g. in Backus-Naur
Syntax) for extended date/time notation.

--
Jakob Vo▀ <[log in to unmask]>, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 G÷ttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de

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