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.
> 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
> (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
> Note: Modifiers would not be secondary sorts but apply to the sort itself.
> 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
> 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
> 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.