Ok as has been noted we do need more formal definitions of these terms and I will try to propose some.
For "questionable" though .... the idea is that - and perhaps we need to accept a very brief model within the spec - there is a data entry person (e.g. a cataloger) entering metadata, or some machine process extracting or converting data or metadata. This process or individual determines, algorithmically or based on rules of operation, that the source for a particular date is dubious or questionable. So there would (most likely) be no consideration of the audience. At least, I would not think that would be part of the model.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Questionable vs. approximate
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ray Denenberg
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I don't follow you Bruce. I think the example of a questionable or
> dubious source is sufficient to justify support of a questionable date
> but I don't understand how the audience is relevant.
> Well, the obvious question is "questionable or dubious" for whom?