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]GOV] 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]