Gene,

 

Nobody is talking about “precise” dates.  The topic is “precision” of dates, a very different concept.  In this context, it means “what scale of time did the event take place in”, rather than “how well do we know when the event took place”.  If an event took place in a single year, then it has a precision of year, regardless of whether we know exactly what year.  If an event took place over a span of time more than a year but fitting within a single decade, the precision is decade.  That means that specifying a decade is sufficient to encompass both the beginning and the ending of the event.

 

There is no particular reason for end users to know anything about precision of dates.  It would be very rare for end-users to even see this data.  This is for computer manipulation of data.  Old date formats in MARC had some ambiguous definitions, where one could not which of several possible interpretations were intended.  Getting very specific definitions is very important for enabling computer manipulation.

 

                                                                        Steve McDonald

                                                                        [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 8:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Revised EDTF

 

I really don't whom to respond to here, but if we are debating this, it is no wonder that directors want to dump cataloging and outsource it altogether.

And if we don't understand it, how can we catalog it so that the result will be understandable to other catalogers or patrons?

What is this talk about "precise" dates.  2018 is precise. 20XX is not.  201X is not.

Do such discussions about being "precise" only add to the confusion?

 

Gene Fieg

 

Gene Fieg

 

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:23 AM Gary L Strawn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I’m sure that’ll be right after Phase 3...

 

Gary L. Strawn

Northwestern University Libraries

Northwestern University

1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300

e-mail: [log in to unmask]    

office: 847/467-7240

storage facility: 847/467-4619

authority toolkit documentation: http://bit.ly/1Hl1jST

Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Revised EDTF

 

Among the changes, it appears that codes such as 196u are no longer valid EDTF.  Will there be any effort for cleaning up invalid/obsolete codes in authority records?

 

Adam

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hostage, John
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 2:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Revised EDTF

 

 

From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 15:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Revised EDTF

 

The new version of ISO 8601 is being prepared for final ballot and is now expected to be published in mid-2019.   There will be two parts. Part 1 is essentially the same as 8601-2004 (with some corrections). Part 2 is extensions.  There are many extension, including EDTF functionality (some syntactic changes were necessary, to satisfy international requirements), and in addition, EDTF is included as an ISO 8601 profile.

 

The draft specification from 2012 has therefore been superseded and a revised EDTF Specification based on the revised 8601 is now available.

 

Ray