On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:24:31 +0200, [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala wrote
> Many interesting ideas have been written on this list! That is good!
> > > If there are use cases, I would really like to include such precision
> > Use cases, I think, are a plenty. I think I have over the course of this
list presented quite a few....
> OK! There are use cases! Fine! Let now try to formulate something useful
> and (preferably) not too ambiguous! Some good attempts have be achieved!
> Thanks for that! Here are some comments about them.
> > Yester[day|week|month|year]
> This grammar does not seem to be the one we have used in our BNF. To
Yesterday, Yesterweek, Yestermonth, Yesteryear
> prevent misunderstandings, I would suggest to clarify which grammar is
> used in these productions. Is anything within square brackets required or
> > NNNN century (as in "19th century", "19 Jh." etc)
> I would welcome a clarification about the semantics of "Jh."!
Jh is German for Jahrhundret, or 100 years.. its the concept of Century..
e.g. 20 Jh spans from 1901 to 2000. The French expression "XXe siècle" too
is sometimes found for this same century.. Here Roman numerals are a
significant part of the convention..
> > [Last|Past] [NNN] Sec[onds]|Min[utes]|H[ours]|Day[s]|Week[s]|Month[s]
> Is it OK with constructs such as
> Past 0 Millennium Past
> Last 1 Hours ago
> and the questions such constructs would rise? Or do I misunderstand the
> grammar? Days, Decades (etc.) may be written as whole words in both
> singular or plural, whereas Hours, Minutes and Seconds may not, or maybe
> not? What applies here?
With Seconds the Sec is manditory and the rest is optional, e.g. Seco,
Secon, Second, Seconds. Similarly Min, Minu, Minut, Minute, Minutes.
For Hours one can write H, Ho, Hou, Hour or Hours.. With days, weeks, months
and years the s is optional.
The reason I did not allow of s or second or m for minute is that it could
result is some problems with other abreviation--- such as "s" for "stunden"
> > "Yesterday" is date precision while "Past Day" is date/time precision.
> This could be useful, maybe. But such a contruct is something I would call
> "error prone" because many people would probably misunderstand these
> subtleties, especially if we keep in mind the following quote from this
> > given the lack of widespread "precision consciousness" at this time.
> That is VERY important, I think!
> I consider it could be useful to include the concept of precision in EDTF.
> My opinion that this would require a specific syntactic construct is
> stronger than ever. My aim is not to "over-complicate" EDTF. Instead, I
> consider that there is a need to help EDTF users to avoid to use (and
> misunderstand) constructs implying semantics they are not aware of.
> Such a precision specific syntactic construct would also be useful to fine
> tune a higher granularity. Issues written on this list contain the
> following ones:
> > The problem is with 10s left of the decimal point.
> > the generalized "x" syntax.
> A precision specific syntactic construct would make it easier to achieve a
> higher granularity and, for example, to write a date with a "3 days
> precision" - even when two different months are involved - such as
> 1996-05-01 \G3D
> (using the syntax I suggested earlier). But that is only one example ...
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB