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:

Reliability and probabilities

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:20:51 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (74 lines)

Hello!

In Annex A, there is a suggestion to implement reliability in the future. 
Hereby, I suggest to modify its syntax and implement it in level 2 now.

My suggestion focuses on both machine processing and human readability. It 
is also quite comprehensive and allows a granularity enough for most 
needs. Furthermore, its implementation would be really easy.

As of the EDTF specification, question marks occurring outside URIs are 
never followed by anything else than a tilde, a slash or a dash (which 
possibly could be extended to "T", "Z", and colon) - never a digit.

In my suggestion, question marks could be followed by one or two digits. 
That makes the BNF expression really easy with a rhs for UASymbol as:

( "?" ( "0" | oneThru9 digit? )? | "~" )

thus we would also skip "?~".

Let's now focus on the semantics of this suggestion.

The first or only digit would be an indication of the reliability, with a 
10-procent granularity. The digit one would represent a reliability of 10% 
and the digit nine would mean 90%. If the reliability is around zero, 
we could remove the whole date. If the reliability is (nearly) 100 
percent, we could remove the question mark. The semantics of the digit 
zero would be "unknown reliabity".

When the first digit is non-zero, the optional second digit would indicate 
the statistical dispersion in a more or less Gauss-like pdf (not PDF!). 
Roughly, that would be something quite similar to standard deviation. More 
precisely, I suggest that the digit one would mean plus / minus ten 
percent. Likewise, the digit four would mean plus / minus fourty percent.

Of course, we would remain within zero to 100 percent.

Here, I give some examples:

2011?0 - maybe 2011, but with an unknown reliability

2011?1 - with approximately 10 percent reliability, the date was 2011, 
that is 10(+undef/-undef)%

2011?9 - with approximately 90 percent reliability, the date was 2011, 
that is 90(+undef/-undef)%

2011?90 - with approximately 90 percent reliability, the date was 2011, 
that is 90(+0/-0)%

2011?21 - with approximately 10 to 30 percent reliability, the date was 
2011, that is 20(+10/-10)%

2011?43 - with approximately 10 to 70 percent reliability, the date was 
2011, that is 40(+30/-30)%

2011?93 - with approximately 60 to 100 percent reliability, the date was 
2011, that is 90(+10/-30)%, but the reliability is most likely around 90%.

2011?82 - with approximately 60 to 100 percent reliability, the date was 
2011, that is 80(+20/-20)%, but the reliability is most likely around 80%.

Both the syntax and the semantics are remarkably straightforward and easy 
to learn and implement. This would also probably cover most use cases.

A further improvement could of course be to introduce a third digit to 
take into account pdf asymetries, but I suggest to introduce the 
one-to-two-digit construction in the level two and leave the three-digit 
version in Annex A for possible future features.

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