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  August 2011

DATETIME August 2011

Subject:

Re: Rethinking Precision and "x"

From:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:59:04 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:52:46 -0400, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote
> Ok, I think I have a solution to all of this.
> 
> 'u' clearly has a much different usage when used internally than when it
> replaces one or more consecutive rightmost digits. I don't think we have 
yet
> confronted this.

The semantics for u restricted to application as one or more consecutive 
rightmost digits can have but need not have the semantics as a placeholder 
but does not do well to express measurement precision.

199u where u is a placeholder has unknown year but expresses a date with a 
precision of year. 199x by contrast has a precision of decade. The u as a 
rightmost placeholder can be used to express precision via a semantics of 
uncertainty but then it would not be a placeholder..

This is, I think, a problem with our current specification for u and not 
really x. 

The solution, I think, is to call u a digit placeholder: 
unknown/unconfirmed/untested/unspecified/unmeasured ....

Its use and semantics are simple. One can use u in place of a digit anywhere 
in a date/time expression.

> 
> Thus 196u means:
>     "a date in the 1960s"

Yes. But with year precision... what year? We reserve the digit place.. The 
whole point of u is, I think, the explicit intent "I hope to fill in the 
blanks". 

> and expresses imprecision, where 1u66 might be said to express uncertainty.

I think we should avoid the term "uncertainty" with u and keep to 
placeholder.. Uncertainty to century with year 66 is I think something 
else.. Instead its saying, I think, I know its year 66 and second 1000 
years.. I need to check the century and so I'll leave it as u and come back 
sometime to fill it in.. That I always thought was the reason we got them in 
MARC.. In MARC the u is called "unknown" but its not really unknown.. only 
not available at the moment the record is authored.. Its saying "to be 
filled in later"... Precision is not about filling in later.. A sample that 
weights 2 grams on a balance that reads only to gram is a weight of 2 grams 
with gramm precision.. I might never have call to measure it with a more 
precise balance.. 

> 
> In other words I suspect the solution to this problem is not to refer to
> "rightmost" 'u' as "uncertainly" and instead refer to it as "imprecision".
> 
> And since 'u' means different things when used internally vs. rightmost, 
and
> perhaps 'u' shouldn't be used for both.
> 
> I therefore propose that 'x' be used instead of 'u' for level 1 
uncertainty,
> and that we rename "uncertainly" as "imprecision" for level 1 (and continue
> to call it 'uncertainty' for level 2 - internal).
> 
> --Ray

--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967

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