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: Interval - compiance with 8601

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:03:36 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (105 lines)

Well I just noticed in B.1.4 of 8601 (the "examples" section) the example:

"a time interval starting at 12 April 1985 and ending on June 25, 1985:
1985-04-12/06-25"

It seems only reasonable to infer from the inclusion of this example that it
is intended to be allowed. Even though the examples are non-normative, I'm
tired of playing interpretation with 8601 and I take the position that given
such a glaring ambiguity we can intepret it as we please.  So I am now
inclined to agree with Ed's interpretation, and to cast this as a level 0
feature.

 And, it is interesting to note that the year is omitted on the end
component of the interval, implying that it is the same as the start year.
I would deduce from this that 

1985-04-12/25

is legal, and means the same as

1985-04-12/1985-04-25

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 2:37 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [DATETIME] Interval - compiance with 8601
> 
> It seems there is a discrepancy about whether it is legal in 8601 for
> the endpoints (start and end) of an interval to be other than "complete
> representation". For example year/year , year-month/year-month, even
> year-month-day/year-month-day would be less that complete
> representation because the time is not included. Complete represention
> has to be year-month-day-time/year-month-day-time.
> 
> By a literal interpretation of 8601 this seems to be true, Ed
> conjectures that it is an unintentional oversight. I don't think it
> matters much as I'm sure we all agree that there is no reason to
> disallow these "incomplete representations" in our spec.
> 
> I suggest that we designate these as level 1 features.  That is, they
> are not part of the formal 8601 profile (level 0) but rather part of
> the first level extensions.
> 
> --Ray
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 2:44 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] A three level suggestion // ISO 8601
> > Hermeneutics
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:44:13 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> > wrote
> > > From: Edward C. Zimmermann
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Ed - It appears to me that ISO 8601-2004 (the current version) is
> > > freely available, since it is easily googled, for example:
> > >
> > > http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf
> >
> > In that version
> >
> > 4.4.1 here specifies start and send with / as a).
> >
> > In the verbage of 4.4.4.1 it asks for expressions compliant to 4.3.2
> > Again, I think, this was an unintentional logical oversight in the
> text.
> > 4.2.2.3 defines the representations with reduced acuracy. There is no
> > reason, I think, to disallow these. Note that they explicitly allow
> > for reduced representations for durations so I don't see why they
> would.....
> >
> > >
> > > And my printed copy seems to be the same as this version.  It
> > > doesn't have any of the sections you cite; there is a section 5 but
> > > it is a half-page with no subsections.  Could you have a look at
> the
> > > newer
> > one
> > > and determine if what you saw in the older version is there?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --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