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  October 2015

DATETIME October 2015

Subject:

Re: EDTF to ISO: status and request for feedback

From:

"Byrd, Donald A." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:05:25 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

These are great examples. I'd like to add another class of examples for 5.3.3 (One of a Set). Several composers have claimed to have written pieces earlier than they actually did, apparently to make their work seem more original. (And I'd be very surprised if this phenomenon was confined to music.) For example, Henry Cowell's remarkable piano piece "The Tides of Manaunaun" was probably written in 1917, though Cowell claimed 1912 (and the latter date appears in the publication). I've never heard any other date suggested. So this would be "[1912, 1917]".

--Don


On Oct 19, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Hannah Tarver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello - 
> 
> I'm not sure I have opinions yet about the current discussion, but I noticed in the thread that you're looking for actual use-cases for     several of the date types.  We've been using the EDTF as our standard for several years, now, so here are explicit examples of creation dates that fit some of these categories, with explanations.  I can give you additional examples if you need them (though these are representative of the types of use-cases in our collections).
> 
> 5.2.1 Uncertain/Approximate
> 
> We don't use this one often, but we do have some examples:
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth192720/ -- Map that may have been created ca. 1621.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth7398/ -- Ribbon labeled "February 12-13" which may be from ca. 1900.
> 
> 
> 5.3.2 Partial Unspecified
> 
> I don't know if the previously-cited examples are realistic use cases, however, it is not unusual to have historical documents that are only partially legible or contain partial dates, which means that any part of the date may be uncertain or unknown.  Here are some examples:
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth611895/ -- This speech is labeled "March 10" with no year; it is known to be from the 20th century and at some point, there may be a more approximate estimation of the year.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth216297/ -- This letter/transcript has a clear day and year, but no month.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth160246/ -- This letter only has the month, "October" written on the page; archivists also knew the decade (not the full year).
> 
> 
> 5.3.3 One of a Set
> 
> We use one of a set on a regular basis for photographs, since we often have a general range of time and know that a photo could only be taken on a specific date.  We also use it for historic items with dates noted "between YEAR and YEAR."
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/TFFC/browse/ -- This collection (4,424 images) contains photos taken during an annual event in San Antonio, Texas.  The dates of the event each year are known, but the date for specific photos is not known for most of the collection.  We used one of a set to represent the event dates for each year.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth231466/ -- Historic map created between 1705 and 1721.
> 
> 
> 5.3.4 Multiple Dates
> 
> We use multiple dates more infrequently, but we have had several use cases.  I think it will come up fairly often for scrapbooks and diaries when date(s) are known.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth549705/ -- This is an individual scrapbook page with two clippings           published on separate dates.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth518571/ -- This collection of slides has images of a permanent installation at the Dallas Museum of Art; the photos were taken at several different times.
> 
> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth611918/ -- This diary has entries from 1818-1820 and 1840.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Hannah
> 
> ---------
> Hannah Tarver
> Department Head
> UNT Libraries Digital Projects Unit
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2015 02:20 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
>>  
>> Richard  and Saašha - Thanks for the comments.
>>  
>> First, Richard –
>>  
>> I appreciate the example use cases for “uncertain as well as approximate” and I will pass them along to the working group.
>>  
>> I am not comfortable with the suggestion that “?’ should apply only to a single date part (so if the entire date is uncertain then you would need “?” on all date parts).  While I appreciate the applicability of this suggestion for the historical document use cases,  I think that “?” will be intended for an entire date probably 90% of the time and in those cases it would present an extra and unnecessary burden.   Furthermore, to have “?” apply one way and “~” the  other (as you suggest) would case too much confusion.  So I would prefer not to bring up this suggestion.
>>  
>> You also suggest that approximate and uncertain should not be mixed together – to be clear: that one could apply to one date part and the other to another, but both should not apply to the same date part (or to the whole date).   Makes sense to me but I would like to hear reactions to this proposal.
>>  
>> On the suggestion to drop “Y” for year (when it exceeds four digits): The reason we came up with this to begin with is that the 8601 method requires prior agreement between communicating parties (agreement on the number of digits for the year) and we were all in strong agreement that this severely limits interoperability (at least for the long-year use cases). Furthermore, the working group seemed to favor our approach, for the reasons given. So I don’t want to suggest this.
>>  
>> ____________________________________________________
>>  
>> Saašha
>>  
>> > let's keep in mind that we use lower case "x" in level 2,
>>  
>> No, uppercase ‘X’ would be used in level 2 as well.  Only uppercase characters are used throughout 8601.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> > Let's consider a document dated "Friday
>> > 13th", containing the phrase "next year, in 2016", then the document could
>> > be written 2015-02-13, 2015-03-13 or 2015-11-13.
>>  
>> I am assuming you meant "next year, in 2015".   Is this a realistic use case?
>>  
>>  
>> > > 5.3.2 Partial Unspecified
>> > There is an obvious need for this one! For example a letter dated "Friday,
>> > November 13th", containing the phrase "next decade, in the 2020's", then
>> > you would have 201X-11-13.
>>  
>> Again, is this a realistic use case?  How likely it is that a letter would use "next decade, in the 2020's", to indicate the year.
>>  
>>  
>> > > 5.3.3 One of a Set
>> > There is an obvious need for this one!
>>  
>> Still need a concrete use case.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> >
>> > > 5.3.4 Multiple Dates
>> > There is an obvious need for this one!
>>  
>> Similarly,  need a concrete use case.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> > > 5.3.7 Year Exceeding Four Digits - Exponential Form [...] y17101e4p3
>> > I would give this one a lower priority. Furthermore, I would suggest to
>> > choose another character instead of "p", because the letter "p" is
>> > conventionally used (instead of "e") as a short for "power of" within
>> > hexadecimal strings in exponential form, because the letter "e" is a
>> > hexadecimal digit. Using "p" here could be confusing.
>>  
>> I want to be sure I understand: ‘p’ is used instead of ‘e’ in hex strings (because ‘e’ is a hex character) but only hex strings, and ‘e’ is fine in a decimal string?  If that’s the case then I don’t see any problem with using ‘e’, since there never will be hex in the date string.
>>  
>> As to the importance of this feature, recall that the example is:
>> y17101e4p3    (Some year between 171000000 and 171999999, estimated to be 171010000 ('p3' indicates a precision of 3 significant digits.)
>>  
>> So it allows you not only to indicate the estimated year (171010000) but also a range of precision.  Not trying to play scientist, but this seems to me to be a fairly useful use case.
>>  
>>  
>> >
>> > > 5.3.8 Season - Qualified
>> > I consider that this one should be namespaced. If we choose to wait for a
>> > future version for namespaces, let's provide some forward compatibility at
>> > the very least. For example, we could specify that the qualification should
>> > not contain a colon, so that future versions could use the colon as a
>> > separator between the namespace prefix and the qualification.
>>  
>> My guess is that the namespace approach will not be accepted. Instead, we will just extend the numbering. For example if 21-24 are spring, summer, autumn, fall, then 25-28 could be for northern hemisphere, 29-32 (not necessarily 25-28;  there may be gaps), for southern, 33-36 for q1-q4, then quadrimesters, then semesters, and so on. Discussion on this has been very preliminary so far.
>>  
>> Ray
>>  
>>  
>>  
> 

---
Donald Byrd
Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellow
Adjunct Associate Professor of Informatics
Visiting Scientist, Research Technologies
Indiana University Bloomington

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