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  June 2011

DATETIME June 2011

Subject:

Re: On the usefulness of x

From:

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:49:09 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

 From: Edward C. Zimmermann
> It does not mean the same thing. 1950/1959 is an interval (a set of
> points, linearly ordered containg all the points in-between the start
> and end) and its precision is that of year. 195x is a point and its
> precision is 10 years. 

Are you saying that 195x means some instant in time within the interval
1950/1959? That's certainly not what I thought was intended. 
Now while I don't suggest that that isn't a real requirement, and it
certainly isn't otherwise supported by the spec, if you want to say "some
instant in time with the interval 1950/1959" why wouldn't someone want to
say "some instant in time with the interval 1955/1958"?   The x notation
won't be of any use for that, it's only good on a decade boundary.  


> I think I did a rather long expose of points and intervals some time
> ago..

I think we're all clear on the concepts.

> Or shall the chorus now suggest that 1999, 1999-02, 1999-02-01, 1999-
> 02-01T12:00 are all intervals too?  

No. Nobody is (still) suggesting that. I don't think we need to rehash it, I
think we all understand the model. However, what I don't want us to have to
do is try to articulate it in the spec. 


> We don't need or want to define the concept of decade, century or ..
> But I think we do perhaps want to have a concept of 10 years, 100 years

Accepting that for argument sake, if the 10 year period must start on a year
divisible by 10, and the 100 year period on a year divisible by 100, that
doesn't give you a way to represent an arbitrary 10 year or 100 year period.


Nevertheless, if you're happy with that restriction, and since it seems that
only you are going to use this, I don't have a problem with defining it as
you suggest. 


> This is not the domain of CQL, at most its for CQL to accept our work
Yes that's how I see it. 

--Ray

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