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  November 2015

DATETIME November 2015

Subject:

Re: 1/27 conference call notes

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:25:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (215 lines)

So,  [1960-01-01 1969-12-31]   explicitly excludes 1970-01-01  while  [1960 1969]   does not.

Ok, so 20199 mg rounded to the nearest gram is 20 grams.   Would a fair analogy be a time machine that measures to the nearest decade boundary? So 1974-12-31 would also not be excluded by [1960 1969] (though 1975-01-01 would)  nor would 1955-01-01 (and 1954-12-31 would not). 

So, can we say that [1960 1969] means the same thing as  [1955-01-01 .. 1974-12-31]


Another question.
You said    [1960-01-01 1969-12-31]  means "a day between 1 Jan 1960 and 31 Dec 1969 with a precision of day"
Is " with a precision of day" redundant?
And, how does [1960-01-01 1969-12-31]  differ from [1960-01-01 .. 1969-12-31]  which means "a day between 1 Jan 1960 and 31 Dec 1969"

Ray



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C.
> Zimmermann
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 6:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] 1/27 conference call notes
> 
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:17:42 -0500, Denenberg, Ray wrote
> > Ed - suppose, for discussion sake, that we adopted something similar
> > to
> what [WINDOWS-1252?]Saašha  suggests, so that
> > [1960 1969]  satisfied your need for what you call "decade precision".
> >
> > Would [1960-01-01 1969-12-31]  mean exactly the same thing as [1960
> 1969]
> ?
> >
> 
> 
> For the sake of consistency 1960-01-01 has a precision of day so I'd read that
> as a day between 1 Jan 1960 and 31 Dec 1969 with a precision of day.
> 
> This would be a day in the 1960 decade with a precision of day. An event, for
> example, that is known to have taken place on 1 Jan 1970 does not belong in
> this set. If, however, we have a more coarse precision it can well belong just
> as a sample weighing 20199 mg probably would be included in a collection of
> 20g samples when measured with a cruder scale that could only read grams.
> 
> The point about decades is that we have a number of different semantics.
> When we talk about 1950s design ....
> 
> 
> 
> > (Note: I omitted the underscores form  [WINDOWS-1252?]Saašha's
> > examples,
> because I don't think they are necessary, and we can't use that character
> anyway.)
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C.
> > > Zimmermann
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 4:19 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] 1/27 conference call notes
> > >
> > > [1960..1969] has precision of 1 year. When we say 1960 we are
> specifying a
> > > date with a precision of year. Saying that a date is within some
> > > range
> does
> > > not change the precision.
> > > We want, however, another precision.  That is what the 196 you
> suggested
> > > is...
> > >
> > > This could let us do things (using now your notation): [196..199] My
> > > suggestion was to make it some consistent and allow our focus of a
> decade,
> > > for example, to be shifted to a middle point elsewhere..
> > > Think about statements like "Mid 18th century"...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:00:46 -0500, Denenberg, Ray wrote
> > > > Ultimately there will be a limit to how far I can push these
> extensions.
> > > The group has been receptive so far but I fear we may be approaching
> the
> > > deep-end.  I do not think the recent suggestions will go over well,
> > > for example  [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]‘1960s’  to mean
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]
> [WINDOWS-1252?]“the
> > > nineteen
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]sixties”.
> > > >
> > > > So [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]let’s try this.
> > > >
> > > > Drop the S for significant digits and repurpose it.   So,
> > > > [1920..1950] already means [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]“a
> year
> between 1920 and
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]1950”
> > > > [1920..1950]S1930   could mean [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-
> 1252?]“a year
> between 1920
> > > and
> > > 1950 estimated to be [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]1930”  (S for
> [WINDOWS-
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]‘stimated).
> > > >
> > > > This form can be used to represent significant digits.
> > > > 171010000S3  (3 significant digits) was meant to mean [WINDOWS-
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]“Some year between 171000000 and
> 171999999,
> estimated to be
> > > [WINDOWS-
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]171010000”
> > > >
> > > > And could instead be
> > > > [17100000..171999999]S171010000
> > > >
> > > > For [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]“a year in the [WINDOWS-
> 1252?]
> [WINDOWS-1252?]sixties”
> > > [WINDOWS-
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]what’s wrong with [1960..1969] and for the
> nineteen hundreds
> > > [1900..1999].
> > > >
> > > > Ray
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> > > > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C.
> > > > > Zimmermann
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:34 AM
> > > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] 1/27 conference call notes
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:29:12 +0100, [UTF-8?]SaaÅ¡ha Metsärantala
> > > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I have another suggestion: the posfix "s". [...] When I
> > > > > > > speak
> of
> > > the
> > > > > 1990s, for example, I mean what you now call 199.. Why not call
> > > > > it
> > > that!
> > > > > [...] One could extend it too to other units such as century etc..
> It
> > > is
> > > > > kind of like a reversed decimal point.. 0s means decade... Can
> dicuss
> > > all
> > > > > the other combinations..
> > > > > > That seems good, too! But, I still wonder what the first
> > > > > > decade
> of
> > > the
> > > > > 1900s would be denoted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [UTF-8?]Saašha,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Another take...
> > > > > Let me see if I can define a more consistent approach:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1980s := the decade of the 1980s 1900s := the decade of the
> > > > > 1900s, e.g. 1900-1910 100s  := the decade of the 100s, e.g.
> > > > > 100-110
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 0s := decade starting at 0.
> > > > > The s meaning "decade" and the 0 meaning starting at 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > So 1980s is the 198th decade
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we can get semantics for things like 1985s. to be something
> like
> > > > > a year measured 1985 with a precision of 10 years. Really a
> > > > > decade
> > > shifted
> > > > > 5 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we define
> > > > > sNN where NN is years precision.
> > > > >
> > > > > s  := s10. The default is 10 years precision
> > > > >
> > > > > This gives us something like
> > > > >
> > > > > 1980s10 would be the same as 1980s
> > > > > 1985s2  as a date around 1985 with a precision of 2 years
> > > > > 1985s1 is the same as 1985
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB

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