LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@LISTSERV.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 2012

DATETIME September 2012

Subject:

Re: Minor comments on Draft Submission 13 January 2012

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, 10 Sep 2012 17:03:24 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (82 lines)

From: Rintze Zelle

Thanks for the additional corrections, they have  been applied. 
 
 >> "For year-month, month may instead be "season" (i.e. 21, 22, 23, or
> >> 24)
> however, in that case the entire year-season combination is qualified;
> neither may be qualified individually."
> Does this mean that in the example "2011-23~", year and season are
> approximate? The current explanation, "Approximate season (Autumn 2011)",
> suggests that only the season is approximate. 

The intent is that a season never stands alone, thus by "season" we mean a
year-season combination.  For example, "spring", the season, has no meaning
in isolation (in the context of this spec). So the expression "Approximate
season" implicitly means "Approximate year-season combination".


> 5.3.2
> "the character 'u' may be used in place of one or more digits"
> I have the same comment here I had at 5.2.2: the current description is
> unclear about whether or not a single "u" can replace multiple digits

Ok, I've clarified this.


> 5.3.3
> Despite what's said in "6. Sort Order", shouldn't dates in square brackets
> always be sorted (ascending, oldest to newest)? 

No, there isn't any such requirement. 


....Compare [1760-01, 1760-12..]
> to [1760-12, 1760-01..] (the latter is valid according to the spec)

Yes, at this stage of the development of this spec, it's valid.  You could
bring this issue up during the next phase. 


> 
> 5.3.7
> The term "scientific notation" might be more precise than "exponential
> notation". 

Well it's not really scientific notation that we're prescribing, which we
see as a special case of exponential notation - roughly, scientific notation
is normalized exponential notation - though admittedly these definitions
tend to get mixed up. We did have some discussion of this: scientific
notation requires a decimal point with one digit preceding and the remaining
significant digits following. You'll note in the BNF that there is no
decimal point, just an integer and exponent. You can see some of the
discussion on this, go to http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?S1=datetime and
search on "scientific notation".   One of the arguments was to avoid
constructs such as 1.2345e3 which would evaluate to 1234.5, which is not a
valid year (and this is used only for years). 

> 6
> >> "Seasons may be sorted with Spring < Summer < Autumn < Winter. Thus
> "2011-21" should sort before "2011-23", but applications may choose to
sort
> "2011-21" and "2011-10" either way"
> I find the use of both "may" and "should" confusing. Which one is it?

As it says in section 2, these are defined in RFC 2119
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt 


> 
> Also, reading the whole spec it is unclear to me whether time strings can
> be used with any type of date (e.g. uncertain/approximate/unspecific
dates,
> or dates with only year or month precision). The BNF allows time strings
> after any date string.

No (I don't think so). "date" is defined in level 0.  It does not include
uncertain, etc. Those things are defined only in levels 1 and 2.

"dateAndTime" is also defined in level 0.  But "dateAndTime" is never
referenced in levels 1 and 2. 

--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

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