Print

Print


Coming back to this, just a question:

What's the basis on which level two and three features are distributed?

Bruce

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth considering further.
>
>  The spec could be represented as:
> Level 0: a profile of 8601
> Level 1: first-level extensions
> Level 2: second level extensions
>
> And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support for level 2 includes support for level 1).
>
> Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
>
> For level 1, I suggest:
> - uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
> - intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal expressions, but including open and unknown.
> - masking with "u"
>
> Level 2:
> - Lists (one of a set, all of a set)
> - internal uncertain/approximate
> - temporal expressions
> - calendar
> - long year
> - season
> - masking with "x"
>
> Please comment. I will hold off on further BNF changes pending some agreement on this.
>
> --Ray
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:07 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] A three level suggestion
>>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello!
>> >
>> > I wonder what you think about the following suggestion.
>> >
>> > Keeping in mind that EDTF is thought of as
>> >
>> > "both a profile of and extension to ISO 8601"
>> >
>> > according to
>> >
>> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/spec.html
>> >
>> > we could skip "reinventing the wheel", define the first EDTF level as
>> > a profile of ISO 8601 and just add some constraints on ISO 8601 to
>> > build the first level of EDTF. This could make both the BNF and the
>> > coming regexes easier to write, just carving away what we do not want
>> have.
>> >
>> > Thereafter, we could have a second level thought of as an extension
>> of
>> > the first level. Thus, we could use the BNF just to add features to
>> > the first level. I'm particularly thinking of lists, "x", longYears,
>> > seasons and temporal expressions. There would not be any "uncertain,
>> > approximate, unspecified" here. Well, ... "temporal expressions" and
>> > seasons may contain a kind of approximation, but I suggest to place
>> > them in the second level anyway.
>>
>> - where would intervals go?
>> - not clear why 'x' is here and not below?
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> > Thereafter, we could have a third level thought of as an extension of
>> > the second level. Thus, we could use the BNF just to add features to
>> > the second level. I'm particularly thinking of "?", "~" and "u".
>> There
>> > we would introduce "uncertain, approximate, unspecified".
>> >
>> > Comments are welcome!
>> >
>> > Regards!
>> >
>> > Saašha,
>> >
>