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  July 2011

DATETIME July 2011

Subject:

Duration - LAST CALL

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:36:33 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (32 lines)

Duration is currently included in the draft spec at http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/spec.html
in features 003 and 005.

In 005, the end endpoint of an interval is expressed as a duration rather than a date.  But a date/duration interval can always be converted to a date/date interval and so it seems that there is no real need for this feature.

003 specifies standalone duration, for example "five years, two months".  In recent discussion it has become clear that there is more work to do to sort out normalization rules, even perhaps to establish a model for duration.  The only participant in that discussion have been Saašha and myself, and nobody else seems interested, so perhaps there is no need for duration in the spec, in either form, and if not then we can avoid unnecessary work.

So, if you see a need for duration, speak up, otherwise I plan to eliminate it from the spec. 

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] duration normalization rules
> 
> From: Saašha Metsärantala
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Yes it seems that we're not sure that we have any use case for duration,
> either contextual or standalone, and, given the complexity with respect
> to its normalization, we should consider eliminating it from the spec.
> 
> --Ray

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