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: A three level suggestion

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 25 May 2011 09:06:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (43 lines)

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I wonder what you think about the following suggestion.
>
> Keeping in mind that EDTF is thought of as
>
> "both a profile of and extension to ISO 8601"
>
> according to
>
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/spec.html
>
> we could skip "reinventing the wheel", define the first EDTF level as a
> profile of ISO 8601 and just add some constraints on ISO 8601 to build the
> first level of EDTF. This could make both the BNF and the coming regexes
> easier to write, just carving away what we do not want have.
>
> Thereafter, we could have a second level thought of as an extension of the
> first level. Thus, we could use the BNF just to add features to the first
> level. I'm particularly thinking of lists, "x", longYears, seasons and
> temporal expressions. There would not be any "uncertain, approximate,
> unspecified" here. Well, ... "temporal expressions" and seasons may contain
> a kind of approximation, but I suggest to place them in the second level
> anyway.

- where would intervals go?
- not clear why 'x' is here and not below?

Bruce

> Thereafter, we could have a third level thought of as an extension of the
> second level. Thus, we could use the BNF just to add features to the second
> level. I'm particularly thinking of "?", "~" and "u". There we would
> introduce "uncertain, approximate, unspecified".
>
> Comments are welcome!
>
> Regards!
>
> Saašha,
>

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