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: On sets of dates

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:10:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 25.11.2010 16:17, Simon Grant wrote:
>
>>    Q: "When did this band play in your town?"
>>    A: "They gave a concert at 2nd and 3rd June"
>>    Q: "Oh, they started playing at 2nd and finished at 3rd?"
>>    A: "No, they gave two shows, one at 2nd, one at 3rd."
>>    Q: "But which date did they play?"
>>    A: "At 2nd, and 3rd, as I said."
>>    Q: "But '2nd and 3rd' is not a date!"
>>
>> And we aren't (I suggest) trying to represent "the" date of complex
>> constructs like this. The reality is just as you say: there is a set of
>> concerts, and each concert had a date (and a time interval within that
>> date). Surely that is enough for any knowledge representation system.
>
> There is no "the reality is just as you say" if you deal with data. If you
> do not want to allow entities to have multiple dates - fine. If you want to
> model entities with multiple dates - also fine. But none of the two choices
> is "enough" or "reality".
>
>> Does anyone really want to represent dates of this kind of complex
>> construct? If so, why on earth? If we can get a simpler specification by
>> leaving out a doubtful edge case, I would suggest it was very much worth
>> leaving it out.
>
> Using the same argument I propose to replace all Date/Time Standards by the
> following easy specification. There are three values:
>
> "now"
> "earlier"
> "later"
>
> Surely that is enough for any knowledge representation system. Why on earth
> would anyone  want more complex dates? Relax, have a smoke and enjoy
> present! You can also think about past and the future, but don't be
> pedantic!

If I may try to split the difference here, we do need to ground what
we're doing here in practical use cases. And I do think you're
stretching things on this one.

I was trying to imagine a possible example, and having a hard time.
But perhaps an event (like a conference, workshop, hearing) that takes
place over a number of non-consecutive days?

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