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  March 2011

DATETIME March 2011

Subject:

Re: Before/after indicator LAST CALL

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:18:52 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (130 lines)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:56:41 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote
> Ed - are you or are you not saying that the spec SHOULD represent "before"
> and "after".  --Ray
> 

I am saying that I can live with it.. and that if we have §316, one of a set,
e.g. [1667,1668, 1670..1672] we need to have something like [..1672] or 
bf.1672 and [1667..] or af.1667 ...

I am not quite sure which is better to parse but perhaps .. notation. This 
would provide us with expressions like [1667,1672..] and even 
[..1910,1919..] for before 1910 or after 1919
--- then we can dispose of af. and bf. and wrap it all into §316



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:44 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Before/after indicator LAST CALL
> > 
> > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:59:27 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> > wrote
> > > I have not thought much about how to solve this problem and I suggest
> > > that we not get sidetracked into engineering a solution, until
> > someone
> > > speaks up and claims that this is a requirement.
> > >
> > 
> > I see things through the tainted glasses of S/R where it does not
> > matter but...  Since we have the language to express things like
> > sometime in 1906 to 1918 or even to say that an event took place in
> > 1905, 1906 or 1909 the simple case of before and after is natural.
> > 
> > In dating an object we do have things like made since 1815 or made
> > before 1963. The object was made on a given date but according to our
> > current state of knowledge we can only judge the earliest it could
> > probably have been made or similarly the latest date. A stuffed Dodo
> > bird, for example, would need to be dated as prior to the late 17th
> > century when it became extinct. A bakelit ashtray we would immediately
> > suspect needed to have been made after
> > 1905 given that the material was first invented in that year---
> > Baekeland did not begin production until 1910 but he showed prototypes
> > and recieved a patent in 1907.
> > 
> > > --Ray
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C.
> > Zimmermann
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:01 AM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Before/after indicator LAST CALL
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:33:07 +0100, [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala
> > wrote
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > > # 318 [...] its syntax.
> > > > > What about the following syntax? For consistency, I would suggest:
> > > > >
> > > > > uuuu-uu-uu/1760-12-03
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I do not agree.
> > > >
> > > > What does "before 3 Dec 1760" mean? Is it an interval or a specific
> > > > date?
> > > >
> > > > To my reading it is a specific date: date < 1760-12-03
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > instead of
> > > > >
> > > > > .bf.1760-12-03
> > > > >
> > > > > likewise, I would suggest:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1760-12-03/2011-03-10
> > > > >
> > > > > (replacing "2011-03-10" by the day when the document came to the
> > > > > library or archive, etc. or another appropriate day) instead of
> > > > >
> > > > > .ea.1760-12-03
> > > >
> > > > Since 1760-12-03 can be the inteval ending with "now" or it can be
> > > > date > 1760-12-03 Again to my reading for the "bf." prefix it is a
> > > > specific date value (a point} and not an interval.
> > > > Albert Einstein was born 03-14-1879
> > > > Albert Einstein lived  03-14-1879/04-18-1955 the before and after
> > > > prefix could be applied to the date of bith but, I would argue, not
> > the
> > > > other.
> > > >
> > > > An expression such as Einstein was born between 01-14-1879 and 06-
> > 12-
> > > > 1900 is logically correct as a singleton but expressed as an
> > interval
> > > > would be absurd.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Regards!
> > > > >
> > > > > [UTF-8?]Saašha,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> > > > http://www.nonmonotonic.net
> > > > Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> > http://www.nonmonotonic.net
> > Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967


--

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