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:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:42:08 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (44 lines)

Hello!

> the need for "uncertain as well as approximate"
I consider that there is a need for that.

I have no strong opinion about u/X, y/Y or ?~/%. It seems fine for me. But let's keep in mind that we use lower case "x" in level 2, which may create some confusions.

> It is more difficult to justify the need to express that the month is uncertain but the year and date are known ("2004-06?-11").
I think it is quite straightforward. 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.

> 5.2.1 Uncertain/Approximate
There is an obvious need for this one! As I suggested a few years ago, I consider that we should be able to clarify the "width" of the approximation. For example, 2000~ could mean some date around 1999 or 2001, but it could also mean some date around 1900/2100. Likewise, we should be able to specify the "amount" of uncertainity (appropriately on a 
logarithmic scale). When I suggested those features, I was told that they were good suggestions for a future spec. I consider that they could be placed in level 2 already now. If you don't want them today, I suggest to think about them a while for the sake of FORWARD compatibility for future extensions.

> 5.2.5 Season - The values 21, 22, 23, 24 may be used used to signify ' Spring', 'Summer', 'Autumn', 'Winter'
Let's clarify that those "seasons" are to be used when there is no more detailed information about the date. If a letter is dated "spring 2015" with no more information, let's use 2015-21, but if we have the information about month(s) or date(s), let's use this detailed information.

> please re-affirm your need for each level 2 feature

> 5.3.1 Partial Uncertain/Approximate
There is an obvious need for this one!

> 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.

> 5.3.3 One of a Set
There is an obvious need for this one!

> 5.3.4 Multiple Dates
There is an obvious need for this one!

> 5.3.5. Masked Precision
There is an obvious need for this one!

> 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.

> 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.

Regards!

Saašha,

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