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

Subject:

Re: interval precision

From:

Date:

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:23:50 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

 text/plain (83 lines)
 ```On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:56:29 +0200, [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala wrote > Hello! > > > think about increasingly precise balances... > These questions are really interesting! There is no doubt about that! They > may also probably be useful. > > 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.... > descriptions within the EDTF specification! No doubt about that! > > My point with this e-mail is the following: > > There is no way to express subtle semantics within a syntax which is too > narrow for it. To express such semantic subtleties unambiguously, we need But I think the semantics have long been implicitly expressed. Its our job perhaps to lay them explicitly down in the text for our emerging "standard". When I ask someone, for example, how much did the object weigh and they respond "1 gram" what are they saying? They are implicitly saying that the speciment with a precision of 1 gram--- perhaps, at best, 1/2 gram--- weighs 1 gram. When someone reports "1.200g" they are reporting that with a precision of mg a sample tips the balance at "1200 mg". The expression "1.2g" is not the same. Its expressing a measure with the precision of decagram. While a 1200 mg sample weighs 12 decagrams, a 12 decagram sample might not weight 1200 mg to a precision of mg. In weights and measures we typically have zeros (0) left of the decimal point beyond the last place to express higher precision. A number such as "1.000000" is expressing something beyong the number "1". The problem is with 10s left of the decimal point. How can one distinguish between "100" with a precision of 1, "100" with a precision of 10 or "100" with a precision of 100? The same "problem" exists with date expressions. We have well defined expressions of year, month, day, hour, minute, second,.. perhaps even century precision.. but not decade, whence the generalized "x" syntax. The "stuff" is all there.. sure we could extend things to allow for a more general means to express precision.. while I can see a few use cases I do not think that they are needed just yet.. and would carry the danger of complicating things.. expecially given the lack of widespread "precision consciousness" at this time. Many people, I think, that we are addressing with the standard don't have a background in natural sciences so some of these basic concepts might, at first, seem stange. Its one step at a time! What we are still missing then in the standard, I think, are: - clear expression of what has been implicit:   o that "1994" has year precision, "1994-06" month precision etc..     A number of examples, I think, would be good.. down to highly precise     expressions such as !994-05-12T12:22.33Z" (decimal seconds following the     model I expressed for weights with the limitation to the Caesium standard for time)   o the consequences of precision. - how to compare things expressed in different precisions. > a wider syntax helping people storing EDTF information to be aware of the > (implied) semantics of the information they store. Other wise, there is a > risk that some (many) people will store information containing implied > "precision semantics" they are not aware of and some (many) people will > read this information with an understanding of the implied "precision > semantics" different from that of the person who stored this information. We don't meed a wider syntax.. only to be more explicit and demanding in our standard's text :-) > > Regards! > > [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha, -- Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts http://www.nonmonotonic.net Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967 ```