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  January 2011

DATETIME January 2011

Subject:

Re: dual representations

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:32:37 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Edward C. Zimmermann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:57:46 -0700, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote
>> On Jan 19, 2011, at 2:47 AM, Edward C. Zimmermann wrote:
>>
>> > Tossing a wacky idea into the ring...
>> > Why not read the semantics for T as time since 0..
>> > 2011-01-17 is day precision
>> > 2011-01-17T01   is hour precision and means 1 AM
>> > 2011-01-17T01:02 is minute precision and means 1:02 AM
>> > This all agreed..  with this reading of T we get the T:24:00 and
>> > T12:60 paradigm extended to arbitary hours, minutes..
>> > 2011-01-17T25   would be hour precision and 1 AM on the 18th
>> > basically I am thinking of allowing for simple math... this could
>> > be interesting for dumb clients.
>>
>> It depends, I guess, on whether you are seeking to
>> define a format for user input or for interchange among
>
> I see the goal as both.

For the record, I don't; I think the former should be out of scope. If
we try to do too much, we will certainly fail.

This goes back to the issue of requirements; I think we really need a
better understanding of what is and what is not in scope for this
effort.

Bruce

>> parties.  It's often quite useful to accept a lot of forms
>> in user input that one does not want in a database or
>> document to be stored and interchanged.
> Yes.
>
>>
>> Users may well type "19.01.2011" or "1/19/2011" or
>
> 1/19/2011 is one such.. clearly here well defined but
> what is 9/11/2001 ? 11 Sept or 8 Nov? And what about
> 10/03/15--- which can be read as 15 March 2010 or ..
>
> We are now talking about parsers and applications and
> in my own class I have included a large number of formats
> and even included the possibility to allow for inputs such
> as these globally ambiguous but locally understood
> formats.. These are part of their own standards.. I might
> not like them but they exist. What we are wprking on here
> is a new "standard" intended to enable some forms of
> expressions that are desired but not...
>
>> "18 Jan 2011" or "on the 19th of this month", all meaning
>> the same thing.  But in metadata (as opposed to the
>> transcription of historical or legal documents), is there
>> an important goal to be achieved by preserving the differences
>> among those forms, given that (by hypothesis) they all
>> mean the same thing?
>
> There are some differences.. we are talking in this
> list about non-volatile dates but volatile dates such
> as today, the 19th of the current month, 2 years ago
> etc. are in my applications of great utility...
>
>
>>
>> --
>> ****************************************************************
>> * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
>> * http://www.blackmesatech.com
>> * http://cmsmcq.com/mib
>> * http://balisage.net
>> ****************************************************************
>
>
> --
>
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> 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