And another note on "popular": when did people have celebrations around the supposed new millenium? I don't recall any popular movement to delay celebration until the beginning of 2001. I do remember purists suggesting so, but their calls fell on what appeared to be deaf ears. So maybe the idea of century as running from 01 to 00 is not as popular as some people seem to think?

Simon

On 23 December 2010 17:56, Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Ed Said:

"The 20th century using year precision is an interval covering 1901 to the end of 2000."

 

But it seems that Gerard and Simon (and perhaps others) don't agree with you on that defintion of the 20th century.  So if we have some way to denote "20th century" then at best we would have to leave it unspecified what exact period we are denoting.  Further, how would we denote it?    We (mostly) agree that '19' should mean 1900 through 1999, so we can't use '19', we would need another representation. But then, ISO seems to imply that '19' means "20th century" (without defining it).  This is all very convoluted, isn't it?

 

--Ray

 

 

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:44 PM


To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] century

 

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:27:16 -0500, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote
> On the issue of "century" then, would it be reasonable to strike the word "century" from the spec altogether?
>  
> Or alternatively, include a note to the effect that "This spec does not define century because there does not seem to be any internationally agreed-upon definition."
>  
> And further, that:
>  
> " '19' means the period covering the years 1901 through 1999. And this is intended to be consistent with ISO 8601, although it is not clear from that standard precisely what '19' is intended to mean".
>  
> This, of course, would mean that none of the stakeholders in this process has the need for "century" support, to any degree that cannot be satisfied by the above.
>  

The ISO TG itself had problems with the term "century". As, however, a group working on extending the format and given the widespread and popular use of the word "century" I think it would be unwise to drop support of "century". The 20th century using year precision is an interval
covering 1901 to the end of 2000. This is not the same as the interval 1900 to the end of 1999.  The two concepts only align when the precision
(readability) is coarser than year precision---- and only become a date rather than a interval when the precision  covers the  length of the interval
(e.g. 100 years) just as today's date is a date when  its precision is a day.

> --Ray
>  
>  
>
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Grant
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] century
>  
> I agree with Gerard, and yes, that means "19" would mean 1900 through to 1999.
>
> I don't think it is necessary to reconcile that with any common definition of century, as the two concepts are independent. If people want to define the 20th century, that's fine by me, if they all agree...
>
>  
>
> Simon
>
> On 21 December 2010 20:47, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
So you would interpret '19' to mean 1900 through 1999.  I don't disagree with you, but how do you reconcile this with the fact that the contemporary definition of "20th century" is 1901 through 2000 (and 8601 does say that '19' means a "century" even if it doesn't say which one)?
>
 
>
If we were to adopt this interpretation, then the question becomes, is there a need to (separately) represent "20th century" according to the contemporary definition, and if so how do we want to do that.
>
 
>
Thanks.
>
 
>
--Ray
>
 
>
> From: Gerard Ashton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:25 PM
> To: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> Cc: Denenberg, Ray
> Subject: Re: century
>
>  
> Whatever name we give to the year numbering system used in ISO-8601, be it Anno Domini, Common Era, or something else, it is based on the opinion of Dionysius Exiguus as to the date of the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately the surviving documents written by Dionysius are anything but clear about the exact date the era begins. Blackburn & Holford-Strevens present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year of the origin of the dating system, and the date within the year is also up for grabs. I would say that when one is not using IS0 8601, it is impossible to determine exactly which years are included in the 20th century. In an ISO 8601 context, I would interpret the date 19 to mean the all dates where the thousands digit of the year is 1 and the hundreds digit of the year is 9.
>
> Reference
> Blackburn, Bonnie; Leofranc Holford-Strevens (2003). The Oxford companion to the Year: An exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning. Oxford University Press. p. 778-9.
>
> On 12/21/2010 2:37 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:

.  According to 
ISO 8601 '19' means the century.  
Two 
problems:
1. What century?
2. What is 
a century? 
 


>  
>
>

> --
> Simon Grant
> +44 7710031657
> http://www.simongrant.org/home.html


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
Office Leo (R&D):
 Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
 Federal Republic of Germany
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967




--
Simon Grant
+44 7710031657
http://www.simongrant.org/home.html