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:

BNF list

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 23 May 2011 19:30:35 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (71 lines)

Hello!

I suggest to remove the parentheses around "later"

> (listElement",")* (later)
(listElement",")* later

I also wonder whether there are some reasons for not having longYear in 
the lists. I suggest to add them (read below).

There are some differences between the BNF's lists and the lists as of EDTF spec.

The BNF accepts lists with mixed consecutives, such as

[2011-05..2012]

whereas the EDTF spec do not give any example of that. I can't find use 
cases for such lists, but if there are use cases for such lists, I would 
suggest to just add such an example in the EDTF spec to make it obvious 
for the reader that EDTF allows it and then everything is fine.

If there are no use cases, I would suggest to modify the BNF, which could be done strightforwardly as

> consecutives = date ".." date
consecutives = ("-")? ( yearMonthDay ".." yearMonthDay | yearMonth ".." yearMonth | year ".." year | century ".." century | longYear ".." longYear) | "-" ( yearMonthDay "..-" yearMonthDay | yearMonth "..-" yearMonth | year "..-" year | century "..-" century | longYear "..-" longYear )

where I also added the longYear for consecutives.

Another problem is the fact that the BNF accepts

[2011]

and

[201u]

which should be avoided. To avoid lists with only one term is easy, but on 
the other hand, it should maybe (or maybe not) also accept

[201x]

In other words, there is a need for a few deeper changes in the BNF as a whole, when it comes to "x" and "u".

Of course, we could take "the easy way" and just discard both

[2011]

and

[201u]

and

[201x]

and choose to rewrite the last two ones as

201u

as a non-list without braces. But this wakes the question of the semantics 
of "One of a set" lists vs. "u". What's your opinion? If no use cases are 
available, I would suggest to just discard single-element lists in the 
BNF.

These questions are of course related to the thread on "proposed direction 
for uncertain and approximate".

Regards!

SaaĊĦha,

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