Bruce, I have no idea what the requirements are for representing seasons because nobody has indicated any concrete requirements, the appendix lists ideas accumulated over the last couple years, so they won't get lost. (In fact, some of this goes back to when we tried to come up with a date/time definition for Z39.50, more like 15-20 years ago.)
But if you will propose concrete requirements, I will be glad to add them.
Keep in mind, if you mention "spring, 2000", there likely will be someone who will want "spring, 2000 - southern hemisphere", and someone who will want "second quarter, 2000".
But I think that keeping it as simple as possible to start - and then if it it lacking, let people speak up - would be a good approach. So as you are the one who is bringing this up, start with whatever your specific requirements are.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Extended Date/Time Format DRAFT specification
> for review through December 6
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Discussion of the Extended Date/Time Format, EDTF, seems to have
> > stabilized, and the features list has been turned into a draft
> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/spec.html
> > We welcome comments, suggestion, corrections, omissions, etc., and
> > there is still time to incorporate new requirements. Please post to
> the listserv.
> I notice that the current EDTF draft lists seasons (Spring, Summer,
> etc.) as "features that have been mentioned during development of this
> specification but have not been included." Why is this the case?
> The use case is periodical issues that often have cover dates such as
> "Summer, 2000" or "Spring/Summer, 1999".