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  December 2010

DATETIME December 2010

Subject:

Re: unknown/questionable/uncertain/approximate

From:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:29:34 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:31:45 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote

> Anyway, you are suggesting to merge 'unknown' and 'uncertain', on the basis
> that 'unknown' isn't really "unknown" in the sense that 199u is really "one of
> [1990, 1991, [UTF-8?]…., 1999]" so it is a case of 'uncertain', and in fact
> both can be represented by a range (as we define range in the message I
posted yesterday).
> I think this is a reasonable suggestion. (I am fairly confident that the
"odd" cases, like '1u99' are not real requirements.) I am quite willing to do
this (if nobody objects).
>

I, for one, do object. I don't think we should confuse precisions with
ranges set in a higher precision.

 196u (aka. the 1950s) is readable (and repeatable) by decade.
 [1950-1959] might refer also to the 1950s but its clearly readable by year
but only repeatable by decade.

Using the instrumentation analogy:

In instrumentation digital devices tend often to provide much higher levels
of readability than repeatability or accuracy. Analog devices, on the other
hand, often tend to provide less readability but matching repeatability.

Imagine two thermometers. One glass filled with mercury and markings
- 00, 10, 20, 30, 50, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 each 1mm apart from another
and the other electronic with a 2-digit display but repeatable to only 10
degree increments.

The first thermometer is readable to only 10 degrees.
The second thermometer is readable to 1 degree.

A bath is measured. The glass thermometer returns the readings:
   30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30
(mercury thermometers offer excellent repeatability)
Reading the thermometer I see it looks like a tick above 30 but not really
discernible. Clearly not, however, 40.

The electronic thermometer returns the readings:
   33, 39, 31, 35, 38, 32, 30, 37, 39, 34
(electronic devices tend to drift and have non-linearity resulting in better
readability than repeatability)
Using ranges it delivered: [30-39]


While these may seem effectively "the same" I think they are telling
different stories: the decade of the 1950s and the range [1950-1959].

Applying now the approximate predicate I can see even different conclusions
potentially being drawn..


   
> As to the suggestion that 'approximate' and 'questionable' might be merged,
> I am less comfortable. Your interpretation is '"questionable" is more vague
> than "approximate"', but I see a more qualitative difference. The cataloger
> has some evidence that the event may have taken place in the year 1150, but no
> evidence of any other year and if it wasn't 1150 it could have been - who
> knows ? Maybe as late as 1830, or even later. One must not infer an
> approximation, that it it wasn't 1150 then it was sometime close to 1150.
> That's a case of '1150?' (questionable). Is that not a meaningful distinction?

I wholly agree. We have a number of dates that we assume for things but are
widely accepted as questionable. I gave, for example, the biblical Great
Flood. There are also dates that are accepted as disputed--- but without any
alternative suggestion. Antisa Khvichava, for example, is a Georgian woman who
claims as her date of birth 8 July 1880 making her 130 years old. This date
is, however, highly disputed. Its suspected that her birth records were
either mis-recorded or falsified. Some have even suggested that she might be
20 to 30 years younger than her claim. 1880-07-08 is the only date we have.
Its hardly approximate. It might be her date of birth but she might have been
born in 1900 or that matter her birthday might not have even been in July or
the 8th--- another source of error is the observation that Russia until 1918
used a variant of the Julian calendar.






--

 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
 http://www.nonmonotonic.net
 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