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  February 2011

DATETIME February 2011

Subject:

Re: Requirements // Ordinal and Week dates

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:14:09 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:27:26 -0500, Syd Bauman wrote
> Re: ordinal date (2011-038) and week date (2011-W06-1)
> 
> While I think it's nice that some date standard have these (in this
> case, ISO 8601), I can't really come up with a use case in a
> bibliographic world that requires them.
> 

I do not see our development as particular to the bibliographic world--- the 
demands, however, from search and retrieval of bibliographic data go beyond 
from the demands of marking up the records its searching.
Ordinal and week dates do come up in my applications. Many recurring events, 
for example, are also defined by week dates (Americans will all be familar 
with the significance of the first Tuesday in Novemeber or to bring an event 
even closer to "home" the 3rd Monday in Feb.)



> I'm happy, perhaps even eager, to see them go.
> 
> > >  205 Year and ordinal day. Why is this needed? If the requirement
> > > is to record a particular date, that date can be recorded in
> > > yyyy-mm-dd form, no? When does the requirement arise to record it
> > > in ordinal form?
> > > 
> > >  207 Week date. Same question; when and why is it a requirement
> > > to record a date using this notation rather than the yyyy-mm-dd
> > > notation?
> > 
> > It's been my intention to take some of these questionable
> > "requirements" and challenge them before the spec is finalized
> > (i.e. before the end of this phase). I can't cite a use case for
> > either of these two. Can anyone?
> > 
> > And if there are others you would like to list that would be
> > useful.


--

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