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:

"Edward C. Zimmermann" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:40:03 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (294 lines)

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:25:16 -0500, Denenberg, Ray wrote
> 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).
> 

It is not rounding. 


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

They match as one needs to use the lowest resolving... example as search 
for 1970-12-31 in a database that has the value 1970 in an attribute should 
match just as a search for 1970 where the record attribute is 1970-12-31.

1970-12-31 is not the same as 1970. On 1970-12-23 Régis Debray was freed in 
Bolivia. On 1970-12-21 Allende nationalized Chillean coal mines. Both 
events are in Decemeber. Both are in 1970. 

If I have two samples and both weigh on my scale 20g I can only say that 
they both weight 20g I should not say both weigh "exactly the same". They 
are only the same weight from the view of the resolution of my scale. A 
more acurate scale might show quite significant differences. A US nickel 
weights nominally 5g. A penny 2.5g. That is 2 pennies weighs nominally the 
same as 1 nickel. Not all pennies and not all nickels weigh exactly the 
same. On my analytical balance I can read 0.01 mg with a repeatability of 
0.007 mg. When it is calibrated against a standard I can talk about the 
interoperability of my measure against the standard. My scale is not 
calibrated so I can only speak of the readability and repeatability of my 
measure. I may be as much as a few micrograms off the mark.. For my usecase 
I only need accuracy to 1/4 mg so... that said another balance (same model 
etc.) at another location might read a value of the same sample that is 
0.01mg apart.

Same with dates.. but it is even more complicated.. When it is 11:00 in 
Munich it is Midnight in Samoa. Samoa can be not just in the next day but 
month or year or..  When it is 8:00 in Munich it is 11PM in Los Angeles the 
previous date..

An event reported as occuring 1970-12-31 in Munich may be recorded as 1970-
21-30 in Los Angeles or 1971-01-01 in Samoa.

Neil Armstrong set his foot down on the moon on 1969-07-20. We have the 
time in UTC measured as 2:56. That means we watched it on TV in Los Angeles 
on 19 July at 6:56 PM.
Resolving to day...
Someone will recall watching the landing on 19 July.. and another 20 July. 
Since the event took place on the moon we can't even speak of localizing 
the day to where the event took place (the event took place well becore LST 
was suggested)..
 



> 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?][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?][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?][WINDOWS-1252?]‘1960s’  
to mean
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?]
> > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]“the
> > > > nineteen
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]sixties”.
> > > > >
> > > > > So [WINDOWS-1252?][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?]
[WINDOWS-1252?]“a
> > year
> > between 1920 and
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]1950”
> > > > > [1920..1950]S1930   could mean [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-
> > [WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]“a year
> > between 1920
> > > > and
> > > > 1950 estimated to be [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-
1252?]1930”  (S for
> > [WINDOWS-
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]‘stimated).
> > > > >
> > > > > This form can be used to represent significant digits.
> > > > > 171010000S3  (3 significant digits) was meant to mean [WINDOWS-
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]“Some year between 171000000 
and
> > 171999999,
> > estimated to be
> > > > [WINDOWS-
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]1252?]171010000”
> > > > >
> > > > > And could instead be
> > > > > [17100000..171999999]S171010000
> > > > >
> > > > > For [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]“a year in the 
[WINDOWS-
> > 1252?]
> > [WINDOWS-1252?][WINDOWS-1252?]sixties”
> > > > [WINDOWS-
> > > > [WINDOWS-1252?][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?]Saašha 
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


--

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