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
> Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967
>
>

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


--

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