On Friday-201511-20 16:52, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
> "flourished", "born", and "died" would be outside the scope of this spec. They would be data elements of some other format whose values could be edtf expressions.
Yes, I understand that.
> It's beginning to get late in the process, as this is being moved along in ISO. But there is still time to make minor changes if they are simple and well-justified. The changes would be fairly simple but I would need use cases. If you could send me screen shots of these example (actual records with these notations) that would help.
Unfortunately I have left the position where I had more direct access to
various library databases so I have to resort to public catalog interfaces.
has "active 15th century" in 100.d.
has "ca. 1320-1200 B.C." in 650.y (the subjects being another large
contributor for temporal data).
has "approximately 480-approximately 550" in 100.d.
has "990?" in 100.d.
For a more modern example:
has "1842-1914?" in 100.d.
I am unable to off-hand remember concrete examples of "year1 or year2"
or "before/after" cases, but those do exist.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jarkko
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 4:28 PM
>> To: Denenberg, Ray; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] list lurker comment: some real dates
>>> > 276 BC – c. 195/194 BC
>>> *I take this to mean "the interval beginning 276BC and ending
>>> approximately 195 or 194 BC".*
>> Yes. Sorry, mistyped "ca." as "c." here.
>>> *We can't express approximately "195 or 194 BC", but really, that's
>>> not significantly different from "approximately 195BC" or
>>> "approximately 194BC", pick one (say the latter).*
>> Well, true. But for the cataloger making the entry the uncertainty was
>> significant enough to record in detail.
>>> *We can express "the interval beginning 276BC and ending approximately
>>> 194 BC":*
>>> *(note I have used 275 and 193 instead of 276 and 194 because I assume
>>> you mean literal "BC" in which there is no year zero. Edtf assumes a
>>> year zero.)*
>> Yes, 1 BC (BCE) was before 1 AD (CE).
>>> *Can't quite represent that. Can represent " July or August 1213 BC"
>>> but we haven't put in the spec the capability to put that expression
>>> in an interval. It would be trivially easy to modify the spec to
>>> handle that, but we would need an expression of a use case for it.*
>> Going over any large bibliographic database should gain plenty of examples.
>> bibmarc 100.d and 260.c, for example.
>>> > early 3rd century BC
>>> *I don't believe we can represent this. Ed Zimmerman might have
>>> something to say, because he suggests that we can represent "mid-18th
>>> century" (though I'm not quite sure how).*
>> early, late, middle; I assume both century and decade.
>> Now I also remember seeing somewhere (the German authority records,
>> maybe) notations like 1st..4th quarter of a century.
>>> > fl. 780-770
>>> > fl. around 1180
>>> *Sorry, I don't know what "fl." Means in this context. *
>> "flourished", e.g. we know of works by this author, or some other events,
>> between these dates. (Similarly, sometimes the MARC fields have "b." and
>> "d." for born and died, and naturally for other languages other abbreviations
>> are used...)