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  July 2011

DATETIME July 2011

Subject:

Re: duration normalization rules

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:01:18 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (48 lines)

Hello!

> we need only to represent days, months, and years.
As of XML Schema 1.1, "day" as a duration is nothing else than a multiple
of seconds. Any duration written in days may be rewritten to seconds and
the other way round: just divide or multiply by 86400. That's how
datatypes in XML Schema 1.1 works. I think that the concept of precision
may be useful for us and I would like to make use of it, but I would
prefer to formulate it another way and keep the concept of day duration as
of XML Schema 1.1 so that data exchange will be made easier.

> But is "2 years, 5 days" really meaningful?
According to XML Schema 1.1, this would mean a duration of 2x12 = 24
months (on the month dimension) plus 5x24x60x60 = 432000 seconds (on the
second dimension). I think it could make some sense in

200u/P2Y5D

which can not be easily rewritten as something else.

> So, the normalization rules would be different for a standalone duration
> than for a contextual duration.
Yes, of course!

> does anyone see a requirement for standalone duration?
This question must be asked, of course! I was just assuming that we were
discussing standalone durations. Contextual duration can always be reduced
to a number of seconds (and its multiples such as days, etc.) if the
start-point is known with a granularity no lower than that of the
duration.

I would like to ask whether we need CONTEXTUAL duration AS OF #005? Is
there a point with a start-duration interval (as of #005) if it always can
be rewritten as a start-end interval as of #004? Of course, contextual
duration may be useful in expressions such as:

200u/P1Y

but there is no example for that in the EDTF specification. Therefore, I
wonder whether we could move CONTEXTUAL durations to level one where they
could be useful (for example when the start-point is combined with "u"). I
do not find contextual durations useful at level zero as they are defined
in #001.

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