Print

Print


On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:48:59 +0100, Saa?ha Metsärantala 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello!
>
>> For EDTF Level 1 or 2, I propose we add fractional minutes and
>> fractional hours
> We could consider that, but let's then keep in mind that introducing
> non-EDTF-level-zero ISO_8601 features in EDTF level one would modify
> what have been considered the "border" between EDTF level zero and
> EDTF level one. At
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html#composable-architecture we 
> can
> read
>
>> Level 0 may be considered a profile of 8601. Features in levels 1
>> and 2 are not currently supported by 8601.

Ah yes. In that case, I'd say fractional minutes and fractional hours 
should be in no later than Level 1, and quite possibly in Level 0!

But beyond that, does it make any sense for EDTF to be able to express 
95% (say) of what 8601 can express and not the other 5%, even if no one 
currently involved cares about  the other 5%? I don't think so. Surely 
8601 should be _replaced_ by EDTF Level 0. So this strengthens the 
argument that Level 0 should be able to express -- though perhaps not 
with the same syntax or all the choices of syntax -- everything that 
8601 can express. Is there anything besides high precision in 8601 that 
EDTF Level 0 can't describe?

--Don


>
> Regards!
>
> Saa?ha,
>


--
Donald Byrd
Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellow
Adjunct Associate Professor of Informatics
Visiting Scientist, Research Technologies
Indiana University Bloomington