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  December 2010

DATETIME December 2010

Subject:

Re: unknown/questionable/uncertain/approximate

From:

Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:53:40 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (110 lines)

Ed - Your argument for 196u in favor of [1060....1969]  certainly convinces me that I would rather use an analog than digital thermometer if I am seeking accuracy and repeatability. And that I would rather use a digital thermometer if I don't care so much about accuracy and repeatability but put a premium on readability.

But we're talking about representing a decade, not a temperature, and I'm having a hard time seeing the relevance.

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] unknown/questionable/uncertain/approximate
> 
> 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