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:

Proportional 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:

Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:31:08 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

I want to be sure we are clear that we cannot use  '?' (question mark)
because it is used for a different purpose, for example,

2004-06? "questionable year-month"
2004-(06)? "year known, month questionable"
(2004)?0611  "questionable year; month, day known"

We need to dedicate a character as a single-character replacement (which '?"
doesn't do in the above). If we use '?' that would make the syntax
ambiguous.

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Proposal to change unknown marker from 'u' to
> 'x'
> 
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:02:48 -0500, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> wrote
> 
> > The problem is that 'x' is often used to mean "any and all digits",
> > so that "8xx" literally means "all values 800 through 899" when what
> > we want it to mean is "one specific value in the range of 800 through
> > 899 (inclusive)".
> 
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:30:15 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote
> 
> > Wikipedia already uses this notation, which should be argument enough,
> > for instance:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19xx&redirect=no
> 
> The said Wikipedia page sets 19xx to REDIRECT to 20th century which is
> Ray's suggestion of "any and all digits".
> 
> 196x in Wikipedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=196x&redirect=no
> 
> is not even defined. So its not all that consistent and not part of
> their
> policy--- as if their policies truly mattered to us--- but a page
> contributed by a young advertising website copyrighter named Nicholas
> Moreau (aka "Zanimum").
> 
>     * (cur | prev)  16:33, 20 March 2007 Zanimum (talk | contribs) (26
> bytes) (&#8592;Redirected page to 20th century) (undo)
>     * (cur | prev) 16:32, 20 March 2007 Zanimum (talk | contribs) (19
> bytes) (&#8592;Redirected page to 1900s)
> 
> Please note that originally the page redirected to 1900s. That page was
> created in 2007. A stub for 18xx was created in 2005 and 20xx in 2008.
> 
> Note also that other than 18xx, 19xx and 20xx I don't think other pages
> have been created. I found nothing under 196x or 1x66 or x999. When you
> look at 196x or 1x66 or x999 what do you immediately think?
> 
> While our expectations of 19xx when viewed as a date lead us to assume
> that x is some single non-negative decimal integer, I would even argue
> that x has not been specified to be a non-negative single digit decimal
> integer and thus, following the abstract model, could be anything.. an
> argument, I think, that also holds against the 'u' and space ('#') of
> the MARC domain. In many computer textbooks the convention n for non-
> negative decimal, o for octal, h for hexadecimal etc. single digit
> integers are popular. I don't suggest these.
> 
> We want, I suggest, to be able to express both the intent of 19xx as
> representing the 20th century and 19xx as representing a specific year
> date in the 20th century.
> 
> We have, in contrast to the bibliographic date example, two different
> kinds of vagueness as well as states of knowledge:
> 
> 19?? where it can be meant sometime in the 1900s (one specific value
> that just not known) and 1900s which can mean (but does not need to)
> all values "1900 through 1999".
> 
> We need also to distinguish between expressions about the 1900s that
> refer to the 20th century and those that refer to the first decade of
> that century.
> While the colloquial use of the expression "1900s" typically refers to
> the turn of the 19th to 20th century the expression "1300s" more
> typically is used to address the 14th century than its dawning decade.
> 
> In the bibliographic model there is also the "unknown" (marked | and
> not 'u') to denote something that might be known but has not yet been
> collected.
> 
> So for 19?? we have three semantics for '?':
> 1) A specific value currently unknown. Example: 195? to represent a
> book known to be published in the 1950s but with unknown year (I
> actually have a few books that don't have copyright dates but from
> later additions know, more or less, roughly when they were published)
> 2) A specific value not yet collected: to be filled in at a latter time
> (placeholder).
> 3) A implicit expression of lesser precision. The 1950s, for example,
> referring not to a specific year but to a view of dates roughly in
> decades just as 1929 may refer to an explicit event in 1929 (such as
> the 29 October stock market crash) or a series of events such as the
> "Great stock market crash" (spanning from no later than 3 September
> 1929 when the Dow hit its high to no later than 1932 when the market
> bottomed out at under 10% of value), to the whole of the year or to a
> watermark (the Great Depression started in 1929).
> 
>   I think we need to kick around another
> > character, if 'u' is considered unacceptable.  I find it unfortunate,
> > because I think that 'u' is the most natural character to use for
> this
> > purpose.
> 
> I don't find it terribly natural but accept its use case in MARC21
> which is, I think, sufficiently strong to warrant its use here.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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
> Telephone:   Voice:=  +49 (89) 385-47074  Corp.Fax:= +49 (89)  692-8150
> 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