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: Internal unspecified

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 10:17:59 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines)

Ok, I have played around a bit with  BNF for this.  Existing BNF is:

________________________________________________________________________________
(* *** unspecified *** *)

unspecified = 
    yearWithOneOrTwoUnspecifedDigits
  | monthUnspecified 
  | dayUnspecified 
  | dayAndMonthUnspecified 

yearWithOneOrTwoUnspecifedDigits = digit digit (digit|'u') 'u'
monthUnspecified = year "-uu' 
dayUnspecified = yearMonth "-uu' 
dayAndMonthUnspecified = year "-uu-uu'

_______________________________________________________________________________


Following is a rough sketch of what we would need for BNF for "unrestricted" 'u's

____________________________________________________________________________
(* *** unspecified *** *)

unspecified = 
    yearWithU
  | yearMonthWithU 
  | yearMonthDayWithU

yearWithU = digitOrU digitOrU digitOrU digitOrU

yearMonthWithU = yearWithU "-" monthWithU

yearMonthDayWithU = yearWithU "-" monthWithU "-" dayWithU


monthWithU = oneThru12 | "0u" | "1u" | ("u" digitOrU)
dayWithU = oneThru31 | ("u" dugitOrU) (oneThru3 "u")
digitOrU = positiveDigitOrU | "0"
positiveDigitOrU = positiveDigit | "u"
oneThru3 = "1” | ”2” | ”3”
________________________________________________________________________________


But actually it is a bit more complicated, because this does not account for the case where there are no 'u's in the day or month, in which case the number of days needs to be coordinated with the month.  I am strongly inclined to not include that, if we do adopt this.

  In which case, I'm not as concerned with the complexity as I had thought. Saašha's point about the possibility of unspecified semantics is also something that I don't find to be a compelling reason not to adopt this. 

--Ray





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Saašha Metsärantala
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Internal unspecified
> 
> Hello!
> 
> > "1990-12-0u" would match the precision you want only if your use case
> > was "I know it was one of the first ten months."
> I assume you mean "the first nine months".
> 
> > Restricting where u can be used is "creating" complexity.
> Sorry, I do not agree with that!
> 
> > many expression perhaps don't make semantic sense,
> I consider that this would be a huge problem.
> 
> > From an implementation perspective its less effort to accept u
> > anywhere than to have "rules".
> It all depends on WHAT you implement. What you wrote is true if what
> you want to implement is nothing more than validation. If you, on the
> other hand, want to convert / export /reuse / interpret EDTF input in
> some way, then implementation is much easier if we know what we are
> talking about.
> In other words: Interpreting unspecified semantics is more useless than
> easy!
> 
> 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