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  May 2011

DATETIME May 2011

Subject:

Re: New approach about question marks - a suggestion

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 12 May 2011 17:46:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (42 lines)

Note: you're losing track of attribute, so I'm unsure who you're
talking to on specific issues.

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> in the metadata. I think it is important to remember that the EDTF is to be
> useful to create metadata also for objects that are not born-digital, such
> as handwritten documents and other analog-born objects.
>
>> all this complexity
>
> If you want to make your comment even more valuable, we would really welcome
> a clarification about WHAT is particularly complex in the following two
> rules:
>
> - A question mark without a right parenthesis immediately on its right side
> is applicable to everything on its left side within the expression.
>
> - A question mark with a right parenthesis immediately on its right side is
> applicable to everything within the parentheses.
>
> These two rules describe the central concept in my suggestion to a new
> syntactic approach to solve the "approximation" problem. The rest of my
> e-mail was just examples using these two rules and a way to show the analogy
> with written languages.
>
> I consider that the aim of creating EDTF is not only to solve the most
> common situations in which dates need to be stored. There are already many
> such solutions out there. Being able to handle more than the most common
> situations is something that I do not consider a drawback. On the contrary,
> it makes EDTF useful for more people, and thus, make it easier for us to
> coordinate our efforts to document our cultural heritage.

...

But the more complexity you add to a spec, the less likely it is to
actually be implemented.

How is someone supposed to implement a GUI for these sorts of dates, or an API?

Bruce

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