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  September 2011

DATETIME September 2011

Subject:

Re: AW: Re: Proposal to move long year to level 2

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:46:40 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

Based on discussion since this issue was raised, I'm going to leave the spec as is for now, that is, both a level 1 and level 2 long year with the latter represented in exponential form.

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [DATETIME] AW: Re: Proposal to move long year to level 2
> 
> We added exponential dates after some discussion and the arguments and
> use cases, I think, have not changed. Parsing year expressions written
> in exponential form is relatively simple and implementation within our
> systems also more straightforward and compact given our dominant
> computer designs. I would thus keep these in level 1.
> 
> 
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> Von:Saašha Metsärantala
> An:[log in to unmask]
> Betreff:Re: Proposal to move long year to level 2
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> > years more than four digits
> I consider that those are useful. EDTF is not thought to be used only
> for publishing dates, but for dates within (or even outside of) Library
> and Information Sciences in a wider perspective. Years above 9999 may
> be used in both fiction and astronomy, for example. Years below -9999
> are not uncommon within archaeology or paleontology among other
> specialities.
> 
> > I propose to move feature 104 to level 2,
> As of today, level two is the most populated level. It seems that there
> is a risk for an EDTF with only two levels (level zero and level two)
> soon.
> One possibility would of course be to move the whole level two to level
> one and skip the concept of "level two" in whole, but I would prefer
> something
> else: To achieve a better balance, we should consider moving some
> features from level two to level one. In other words: If we move long
> years to level two, we should also move one or two features from level
> two to level one.
> 
> > to remove feature 208.
> Possibly, but in this case, we should clarify the syntax for what would
> have been written as longYearScientific. For example, should
> 
> y18e6
> 
> be rewritten to longYearSimple as
> 
> 18000000~
> 
> or
> 
> 18xxxxxx
> 
> or
> 
> 18000000
> 
> or
> 
> 18uuuuuu
> 
> or a combination of these, such as
> 
> 180uuxxx~
> 
> or something else? The last one may be quite good semantically, but for
> simplicity, I would suggest to choose the first one, namely:
> 
> 18000000~
> 
> Anyway, I think that this should be made clear to avoid confusion and
> misunderstandings.
> 
> Regards!
> 
> Saašha,

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