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  June 2011

DATETIME June 2011

Subject:

Re: A three level suggestion // ISO 8601 Hermeneutics

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:48:10 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 15:53:51 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote
> From: Bruce D'Arcus
> > One way to slice the levels is how different feature diverge from the
> > base. For example, a standard range of "2002-02/2002-03" is not
> > supported by Level 0, but it's components are.
>
> That's a disturbing observation as I suppose I didn't realize that 8601
does not support "2002-02/2002-03". Thus features 208-211, which are
represented as being 8601 conformant, aren't.
>

I only have a copy of the 2000 draft.. but..

5.2.1.3 defines these truncated dates.
5.5.1 gives pattern a) as an interval: start/end where start and end are
dates.
Since the terms "truncated representation" is used in this section there is
no reason to assume that one their intent was not to allow for the use
truncated representations for start and end. While 5.4.1 is specified for
date it was I think an oversight.
I think we should "fix" this oversight and allow for start/end where start
and end are ISO8601 dates (including truncated representations) in any
minimal level--- I will assume that most people's implementations of 8601
have been doing this the whole time anyway.


 
> ISO 8601 is a horribly frustrating document to try to make sense out. It
makes no common sense to me why 8601 wouldn't want to support "2002-02/2002-
03"; I can see that it doesn't, but only by the lack of an example to the
contrary. (At least as far as I can tell - and given 8601's general lack of
examples, deciphering it based on [UTF-8?]it’s examples is not a
comforting process.)

No. It clearly says in 5.5.4.1 that intervals defined with start/end use
5.4.1. It does not explicitly, however, disallow 5.4.2. (reduced
representations) but does not explicitly allow them either. I see this as an
oversight. Should reduced representations not have been desired they would,
I think, have been explicitly disallowed.

>
> But I digress. If "2002-02/2002-03" is not a valid 8601 string while
both "2002-02" and "2002-03" are, then I agree that it does make sense to
cast "2002-02/2002-03" into level 1 rather than level 2. On the other hand,
that seems to be the only feature that would fit this criterion and all else
would be cast into level 2, which would make level 1 rather slim.
>
> --Ray


--

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