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 2012

DATETIME August 2012

Subject:

Re: Two questions about the draft

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:44:30 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (79 lines)

Go - Thank's much for your comments.

From: Go Sugimoto
> 1) Is ~ the only possiblity to express approximate date? For computer
> processing, there is no problem, but thinking of human-usability, It is
> rather confusing, because it looks like starting of period.
> Wasn't it an option to use c/ca (circa) or a (approximate) or something
> similar? As far as th terms like "unknown" and "open" are introduced, I
> don't see the problem to use characters to be a bit more human-friendly.

I don't think there was ever any discussion or debate about what
character(s) would represent approximate date. (There was much discussion
and debate about what is meant by "approximate date", but not about how to
represent it.)  So I can only tell you my view on why ~ was chosen.  Mainly,
we wanted a one-character symbol. 'ca' is sufficiently suggestive of
"approximate" but it is two characters. Neither 'c' nor 'a' is sufficiently
suggestive (nor would any single letter be). We wanted a one-character
symbol because it is used in conjunction with other symbols (in contrast
with "open" and "unknown"), as in for example "?~" and two characters for
the approximation symbol would have increased parsing complexity.

I don't understand what you mean by saying that you find ~ "confusing,
because it looks like starting of period."

 
> 2) There is a paragraph about the use of x and u:
> 
> Note the difference in semantics between 'x' and 'u'. '196x' has decade
> precision while '196u' has year precision. Both represent an unspecified
> year during the 1960s, but for 196x the year is not supplied because it is
> known only with decade precision. In contrast, for 196u the year is not
> supplied 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.
> 
> I am not very sure the diference comes from decade and year precision
> (both seems to have exactly the same meaning: an unspecified year during
> 1960's), but I would think that the intention is different.
> 
> Maybe I am confused with the English phrases, but if I read between the
> line, I might think this way: "expectation" may be a bit confusing term in
> the paragraph.
> For example, on one hand, in archaeology (Im originally an
> archaeologist ;) ), it would be great if scientific analysis brings more
> precise date of an object later, so there is expectation. In my view, this
> is kind of normal situation and there is always a chance for unexpected
> scientific of academic discovery and date can be found later. On the other
> hand, if there is a photo dipicting some Rubik's Cubes. A curator knows
> that they are all from 80's production, but s/he does not need to specify
> more in order to display it as typical 80's toy. Then, the date is 198x,
> and the point is that there is no intention to investigate all the
> production dates in future; hence there is no need to be precise. So what
> about this?
> 
> Note the difference in semantics between 'x' and 'u'. Both represent an
> unspecified year during the 1960s, but for 196x the year is not supplied
> because there is no intention or need to be more specific. In contrast,
for
> 196u the year is not supplied for reasons that are not specified but there
> is some expectation or need (though no guarantee) that the year may be
> supplied later.

The essence of the existing text is "'196x' has decade precision while
'196u' has year precision". Your suggested revision eliminates that
distinction (and introduces a different distinction). During discussion and
debate on this, there was only one participant who felt that this
distinction is meaningful (or at least meaningful enough that it be
represented in the spec). But for that one participant this distinction is
critical. (Perhaps he will weigh in further.)  In fact crafting that text so
that everyone was satisfied was possibly the most difficult part of the
process of developing the spec. You might want to look through the archive
of the email discussion on this.  But in any case, you will have the
opportunity to revive this issue during the next phase, which I hope to have
more information on soon. 

Thanks again.

--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