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  August 2015

DATETIME August 2015

Subject:

Re: Open-end interval

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 1 Aug 2015 23:58:59 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (26 lines)

Hello!

When we were working with EDTF, the question "When was this text written?" could be considered a typical use-case. Now, with ISO-8601-2, this question can (of course) be considered a use-case too, but maybe not a really TYPICAL use-case. I consider that our focus shift from EDTF to ISO-8601-2 requires a widening our perspectives.

Being acquainted with Gauss' and Cantor's theories (and the continuum hypothesis and ZFC etc.) does not mean that we need to limit ourselves to these. Of course they can be used as a basis to build some use-cases, but fiction, the future (and of course future fiction) (will) offer other perspectives. Indeed, the past has already offered other perspectives.

> The librarian approach is a great starting point,
Yes, it is really! It also offers many good use-cases!

> but we sure don't want to be limited by it. Kronecker notwithstanding, mathematicians never stopped with just the integers.
Not even with the octonions, but their "norms" get damaged ... Well, let's leave those (nearly off-topic) algebras and let's focus on ISO-8601-2, again.

I hope you don't misunderstand me. I do not mean that we HAVE to cover everything. But I consider that there is a need to clarify (both for ourselves and) for implementers and other readers of the ISO-8601-2 specifications what we (try to) cover and our awareness of what ISO-8601-2 doesn't cover. My conclusion is that:

- If we exclude "?/?" (and the like) AND clarify WHY we choose to exclude (some of) them, it will be OK for me.

- If we include "?/?" (and the like) AND clarify WHY we choose to include (some of) them, it will be OK for me.

- I discourage an unmotivated exclusion (or inclusion) of "?/?" (and the like). I consider that we really need to continue to clarify our awareness of the width of the field in which we have come when coming into ISO.

My suggestion is to continue to clarify those things before we decide whether we will include or exclude "?/?" (and the like).

Regards!

SaaĊĦha,

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

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