Bruce (and everyone). Here are some thoughts I have on all of this.
First of all I think it may have been a mistake to write the BNF in a manner such that "imprecision" is pervasive rather than isolated. (And I'm using the term "imprecision" as a generalization of "questionable" and "approximate". It might not be the best term and suggested alternatives are welcome.)
In other words, we have:
baseYear = digit digit digit digit
year = baseYear | "("baseYear")" ("?" | "~")
And so everywhere "year" is referenced it picks up all the imprecision baggage. (And similarly for day, month, etc.)
Instead, an approach along the lines of:
Year = digit digit digit digit
impreciseYear = Year | "("Year")" ("?" | "~")
And isolate everything that has to do with "imprecision" in one section.
And further, I think it is reasonable to consider having two (or more) conformance levels, where at the base level, imprecision need not be supported.
I also think that instead of
("?" | "~")
it could be
("?" | "~" | "~?")
That is, you can represent a date as "questionable", "approximate", or "approximate and questionable"
Where "approximate and questionable" is self-explanatory and needs no further definion.
Complex constructs like
Simply would not be respresented.
I would like feedback on these suggestions, before proceeding.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Markus Flatscher
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 4:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] New approach about question marks - a
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 16:05:01 -0400
> "Bruce D'Arcus" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Markus Flatscher
> >> Not to stretch things---just to make sure we're on the same page:
> you still intend to distinguish precision ("approximate") and certainty
> ("questionable"), right?
> >I believe that's the intention. But I have to say, the distinction
> >remains entirely opaque to me. What's the real difference between
> >"2000-01-01?" and "2000-01-01~"? To me they both seem to say "a day
> >somewhere around January 1, 2000; not exactly sure though."
> >I would hope the spec can clear this up.
> This is how I see the distinction, maybe this helps:
> (1) The natural-language surface phenomenon that reflects this
> distinction is "ca." (precision/"approximate") vs. "?"
> (2) I can be _certain_ that a date is imprecise (approximate: "ca. 1
> March 1999"), or I can be uncertain about whether the date is correct
> ("1 March 1999?").
> Sidenote: It's a distinction that feels natural to people in text
> encoding, since it applies generally, not just to dates. Cf. TEI P5
> Guidelines, section 21.2 "Indications of Precision" (http://www.tei-
> Markus Flatscher, Editorial and Technical Specialist ROTUNDA, The
> University of Virginia Press PO Box 801079, Charlottesville, VA 22904-
> 4318 USA
> Courier: 310 Old Ivy Way, Suite 302, Charlottesville VA 22903
> Email: [log in to unmask]