Thanks Florian, Nicola!

Should the example be updated (and thus we must all update our implementations) 
or the specification to match the example which everyone seems to do in 
practice?
My proposal would be to do the latter, in the face of the current ambiguity.

What has everyone else done in this situation? 3 data points is interesting, 
but still anecdotal.

(And I’m not going to mention leap seconds that would make the end of some 
years 23:59:60 instead of 23:59:59, which would be solved by an exclusive end 
date)

Rob

From: Nicola Carboni <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 10:27 AM
To: Florian Kräutli <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <[email protected]>, crm-sig <[email protected]>, 
Adam Brin <[email protected]>, Greg Williams <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] begin_of_the_begin /end_of_the_end is excluded from time 
range?

Dear all,

I also follow the range as appear in the data linked by Florian, so:

crm:P82a_begin_of_the_begin “1586-01-01T00:00:00”^^xsd:date ;
crm:P82b_end_of_the_end  “1586-12-31T23:59:59”^^xsd:date ;
I agree that the example should be harmonised with the text ( which I assume is 
more authoritative). Thank you for pointing out about the problem


Best,


Nicola

Sent from my iPad

On 9 May 2019, at 10:04, Florian Kräutli 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Rob,

Not having read the guidelines as attentively as you I usually implement P82a/b 
suggesting that the begin and end date are both included in the range.

For example, here's the date related to a book published in 1586:

http://sphaera.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/id/item/7e241bb5-41e3-4e08-9ab1-547a93fe6b3d/publication/date

I think this is readable as a confidence interval of the book having been 
published somewhen in 1586, lacking better ways to express the level of 
accuracy in date datatypes.

Best,

Florian



On 8. May 2019, at 19:50, Robert Sanderson 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


Dear all,

I admit I made the rookie mistake of assuming that the P81a/b and P82a/b 
properties followed the typical temporal pattern of an inclusive beginning and 
an exclusive end.
Or using interval notation: [begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end)

Thus if you know that an event happened sometime in 1586, the begin of the 
begin would be 1586-01-01T00:00:00 and the end of the end would be 
1587-01-01:00:00:00.

However, http://www.cidoc-crm.org/guidelines-for-using-p82a-p82b-p81a-p81b 
seems to clarify that both are exclusive.

> "P82a_begin_of_the_begin" should be instantiated as the latest point in time 
> the user is sure that the respective temporal phenomenon is indeed *not yet* 
> happening.
> "P82b_end_of_the_end" should be instantiated as the earliest point in time 
> the user is sure that the respective temporal phenomenon is indeed *no 
> longer* ongoing.

And thus (begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end)

Meaning that the begin of the begin would need to be 1585-12-31T23:59:59 such 
that midnight on January first is included in the range, and the end of the end 
would be midnight of January first, 1587.

However, in the following paragraph it says:

>  … e.g. 1971 = Jan 1 1971 0:00:00. Respectively, for “P82b_end_of_the_end” 
> the implementation should “round it up”, e.g. 1971 = Dec 31 1971 23:59:59.

Which would mean that both ends were *included* in the range.
And thus [begin_of_the_begin, end_of_the_end]

So …

Enquiring minds that need to implement this consistently would like to know 
which is correct ☺


Many thanks!

Rob




_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Reply via email to