> I suggest that we not get
> sidetracked into engineering
> a solution, until someone
> speaks up and claims that
> this is a requirement.
I agree and don't aim at engineering a solution. Some clarifications about
the "philosophy" behind the specs may be useful, though.
> > uuuu-uu-uu/1760-12-03
> [...] Is it an interval or a specific date?
Is it obvious how long time something needs to take to be considered
taking an interval of time?
> > (replacing "2011-03-10" by the day
> > when the document came to the library or
> > archive, etc. or another appropriate day)
> That's a completely separate use case
I wrote "or another appropriate day", meaning a day which for sure was
after the end. This was of course never intended to be a primary way to
store the acquisition date. (read below)
> 20040101/ Does anyone see a problem
I consider that the notation is OK. But, are such open-ended intervals
really useful? My aim is to avoid what I call "self-destructivity of
stored information", that is, information stored in such a way that it
looses its accuracy with time (no matter the specific notation used). I
> A syntax like ".ea.1760-12-03" contains
> an uncertainity growing with time. In one
> year or 500 years, the reader of the
> notation ".ea.1760-12-03" will be given a
> larger incertainity than a reader is
> given today. Expressed an other way: The
> quality (or accuracy) of the information
> stored through the notation
> ".ea.1760-12-03" is not preserved as time
> goes. I consider that preservation is one
> of the main goals for libraries, museums,
> archives etc.
I consider that closing the "end side" of the interval protects the
information from further loss of accuracy.