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: specification review, continued

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 6 Sep 2011 17:40:55 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Syd - again, thanks for the comments. 

 From: Syd Bauman
> 201
> ---
> * "The characters '?' and '~' apply either to the entire portion of
>   the string to their left, unless": but they don't apply to the
>   entire *string* to their left, only to the *date*, *time*, or
>   *dateTime*, right? (See 103 and 205.)

I changed "string" to "date-string"


 
> * "another component of ... of that component.": there are no
>   examples of this, which makes me nervous. Does it mean that the "~"
>   in (2011)-06-04~ only applies to the "-06-04" part?

A better example would be '(2011)?-06-04~' in which the "~" only applies to
the "-06-04" part.

However, '(2011)-06-04~'  would be interpreted to mean that "~" only applies
to the "-06-04" part, but it would be better expressed as '2011-(06-04)~'.

I've added examples for this. 
 



> * "'?' and '~' apply to a year, month, day, year-month, month-day, or
>   year-month-day. ...": why on earth would they not be applicable to
>   the hour, minute, second, hour-minute, minute-second, or
>   hour-minute-second?

Because nobody expressed a need.


 
> 2041
> ----
> What is the difference between masked precision and unspecified? 

I have added a note:
In feature "Masked Precision" '196x' is said to have "decade precision". In
contrast, '196u' has year precision. Both represent a year during the 1960s,
but for 196x the year isn't given because it is known only with decade
precision. For 196u the year isn't given for reasons that are not specified
but there is some expectation (though no guarantee) that the year may be
supplied later; for 196x there is no such expectation.



> It may be useful to express these as equivalents of some sort:
>  196x = 1960-01-01/1969-12-31
> or whatever.

No, 196x is not intended to represent an entire decade, but rather a single
year (with decade precision).


> 207
> ---
> This seems a bit silly to me. The "yyyy-mm-dd" pattern makes no sense
> in some other calendars.

The need was expressed to be able to specify a calendar, and so this is the
way to do it. How this feature will be used is up to those who requested the
feature to figure out, this has not been developed whatsoever beyond this
simple ability to specify a calendar name, and it may never be. And if it
is, only a date of the form yyyy-mm-dd which is meaningful in some other
calendar would be compatible with this spec (and that assumes that some
vocabular for calendar names is recognized) and to accommodate dates of a
different form, the spec will need to be enhanced.  This is all left for
future work.



> 208
> ---
> As I've said before, I think 104 should be moved here to L2, or, better
> by far, both 104 and 208 should be dropped. A reasonable use case for
> years > 4 digits is *extremely* rare, and is completely impossible in
> bibliography.

We want astronomers to be able to use this spec too. 

 
> 209
> ---
> This, along with 207 and most of the possible future features, should
> probably be avoided.

But again this is a requested feature. It is anticipated that communities
will develop vocabularies for seasonal profiles and these could be specified
in profiles. 
 
> I presume that whitespace is not permitted in any of these notations.

Right, I added a note. 

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