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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  May 2011

DATETIME May 2011

Subject:

Re: months duration

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 12 May 2011 12:39:36 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

This is, I feel, a serious mistake. Duration can well be beyond 12 months.
In IT forklore we have the 18 month duration in a number of "Moore's law"
variants--- used by industry leader Intel in their own roadmaps and stategic
planning goals to self-fulfill.
The urge to canonization and normalization has, I think, here resulted in a
shot in the foot..
Please also note that P12M and P1Y are not the same even if, by definition,
1 year is 12 months, yes.. its that mantra about precision again :-)

One should think about what durations expressed in units of precision finer
than the base mean. For example: 2001/P2M
I suggest there is an equivalent expression using our post-fix "?" and "~"
operators but will leave that discussion for another day...

I will quickly (saving my usual verbage) suggest that we should:
1) drop this limitation in months.
1) extend the units to duration to century, hours, minutes and decimal
seconds.
3) allow for positive decimal values rather than limit things to integers.
4) add a clause requesting that, whenever, possible some canonical
normalized form be used. The question of what it is, I think, we should
leave open at this time. P1.5Y versus P18M.. ?

On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:13:45 -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote
> From: [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala
>
> > > why do we even need yearMonth, when month alone would be sufficient.
> > I should have clarified my aim with that. In one way, it would be
> > easier to only use month, but for long periods, I thought it would be
> > easier to read /P123Y than /P1476M. As you suggest, it rises the
> > question of c14n but this may be solved by a reformulation such as:
> >
> > monthsDuration = oneThru11 "M"
>
> Ok, I've made this change.



--

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