Print

Print


First, I'm backing off the suggestion that we need an E in front, I think
that if the string starts with Y, that should be sufficient to indicate that
it is a year. 

 

Three issues.

 

1. should we allow both ways to represent a year: (1) a plain integer, and
(2) scientific notation.  I think yes.  Why force someone to use scientific
notation to express '12001'?  Or, why impose some arbitrary rule, that if it
is less than some size use plain integer, bigger, use scientific notation.

 

2. When using scienfic notation must it be normalized, e.g.    'Y1.2E5'   is
normalized, and is the same value as un-normalized 'Y12E4'.  I would say
that the spec should prescribe normalized (but an implementer is always free
to accept un-normalized).

 

3. Can this syntax be used even for four digit-years?  e.g. 'Y1985'  or
'Y1.985E3'   I would say no.  There will be systems who won't support the
expanded year (this will have to be an optional feature) but they will have
to support a normal four-digit year. 

 

--Ray 

 

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward C. Zimmermann
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Expanded years

 

Would we have to use the E notation ? 

Format: EYffEn 

where n is a positive integer (might as well also specify non-zero) 

Example: EY17E9 

The question is should ff be an integer or should we allow for decimals? 

Floating points would let us have dates such as 

EY1.2E3 

and not say the "same thing" as 

1200 
EY12E2 


On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:11:51 -0500, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote

> I would also assume that we need only represent a year (and even then
often only an approximation) and not month and day, or time. 
> 
> Proposal: 
> 
> 1. change the profile so that all years based on ISO 8601 syntax are four
digits. 
> 
> 2. Introduce the following syntax. Note that we already use the character
E to signal certain "extensions". Use EY to signal that a year follows, and
the syntax is 
> 
> EY[year] 
> 
> where [year] may be (a) a plain (or signed) integer, e.g. 100001; or (b)
an integer in scientific notation e.g. 17*10^9 
> 
> Comments please. 
> 
> --Ray 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Grant 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:22 AM 
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Expanded years 
> 
> Seems like a good idea to me, too, particularly as beyond the 4-digit
range, we are talking about scientific estimates of dates, not dates derived
from any kind of written records. 
> 
> Simon 
> 
> On 11 January 2011 15:07, Edward C. Zimmermann <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> Yes! (the philosophical justification is analogous to the scientific use
case) 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:00:44 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote 
> 
> > From: Edward C. Zimmermann 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:02 AM 
> > > To: [log in to unmask] 
> > > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Expanded years 
> > > 
> > > The best solution would be to use a scientific notation. 
> > 
> > Are you suggesting that we use standard ISO 8601 four-digit notation 
> > for four-digit years, and invent a syntax (perhaps based on 
> > scientific notation) to represent larger years? Just trying to get 
> > clarification on your suggestion, I like the idea. 
> > 
> > --Ray 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB 
> Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts 
> http://www.nonmonotonic.net <http://www.nonmonotonic.net/>  
> Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967 
> 
> 

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


-- 

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB 
http://www.nonmonotonic.net <http://www.nonmonotonic.net/>  
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967