Print

Print


Yes—this makes sense.  However, I'm looking to specify that the portions of
the date that I have specified are uncertain, and the portions of the date
that I have *not *specified are unspecified.

As such, It was unclear if 1990-uu-uu? (which would be the Level 1 format,
with the uncertainty applying to the whole date) or 1990?-uu-uu (Which
would be the level 2 format, where the uncertainty only applies to the
specified portions of the date) was appropriate.  I could be convinced that
1990?-uu-uu is appropriate,  although it does not allow for, say,
199u-uu-uu or 19uu-uu-uu to be unspecified, which is unfortunate.

However, neither of these formats are supported by the BNF provided.




- David Newbury
-----------------------------------
p. (773) 547-2272
e. [log in to unmask]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> "uncertain and unspecified"  is logically inconsistent because if a date
> is uncertain then by definition it is “specified”.
>
>
>
> From the ISO dis, the definition:
>
> *3.1*
>
> uncertain
>
> date whose source is considered dubious
>
>
>
> If a date is uncertain then by definition it has a source.   If it has a
> source, then it must be “specified”.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *David Newbury
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:55 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [DATETIME] Uncertain, unspecified dates
>
>
>
> I'm trying to implement a system using EDTF, and I'm trying to record an
> event which:
>
>
>
> 1. Took place with day precision. (It is a discrete event, and my system
> does not record with more than day precision)
>
> 2. Is uncertain (I have a date, but I am unsure if it is accurate)
>
> 3. Is unspecified.  (I know the year it took place in, but I cannot yet
> determine the month or day).
>
>
>
> It seems logical that this would be recorded as  *1990-uu-uu?*, but that
> does not appear to be a valid EDTF date.
>
>
>
> Is there a reason that "uncertain" and "unspecified" cannot be used
> together?  They seem to be orthogonal concerns.
>
>
>
> - David Newbury
> -----------------------------------
> p. (773) 547-2272
> e. [log in to unmask]
>