We should avoid over-engineering. There is no need for a syntactic construct to indicate precision.
The precision of an interval is really not a concept that needs articulation. If you have the interval:
Then the start endpoint and end endpoint have their own precisions - year and month precision respectively. These need not be the same, and the precision of the interval is simply undefined.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saašha Metsärantala
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 4:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] interval precision
> > > > the points in an interval are determined by its precision.
> > > When its precision is expressed, yes!
> > When is it not expressed?
> It is not unambiguously expressed in an expression like
> Now, I will try to formulate a suggestion for a syntactic construct to
> disambiguate precision. The letter "P" is already used in the EDTF
> specification. Therefore, I will tentatively choose the letter "G" for
> granularity. Of course, we could rename it to something else. Here is
> my tentative syntactic suggestion:
> 1905/1916-03 \G1M
> disambiguates the granularity of the interval to "one month". We can
> also easily fine tune the granularity, such as:
> 1905/1916-03 \G3D
> for three days. Maybe, this could be useful in (for example):
> 1905 \G1D
> and mean "one 24-hour long period in 1905" (not necessarily one day
> from 00:00:00 to 24:00:00), whereas
> means "one day (from 00:00:00 to 24:00:00) in 1905".
> This was only a tentative suggestion, but it could help us to put
> granularity within a \G construct and focus on "points in time", "start
> points" and "end points" when we write the rest of the EDTF
> Thus, we would let the \G construct take care of granularity. We could
> call that a kind of "modularization".
> The expression following \G could follow the same syntax and c14n as
> the one following the /P construct.