| Jc3s5h added a comment. |
In T146356#2663757, @Smalyshev wrote:I think this idea makes a lot of sense. While I think all far-ago dates that have day precision are most probably data errors (you can't have May 4th in 200000BC, really, at least not using Earthly calendars :) handling these errors in more sane manner is good. However, I think we need then to change precision, if we operate under year precision, we can't just take year and then claim day precision. It'd be claiming false data.
A person using the RDF may just want the best idea of the date that the RDF processing can give. But the person might also be performing quality control on the underlying data that flowed into the internal representation to RDF conversion process. It would be nice to somehow indicate that the date had to be approximated due to limitations of the RDF conversion process. (Perhaps leave it for the data consumer to figure out for him/her/itself that May 4th in 200000BC is silly?)
Cc: gerritbot, hoo, aude, Lydia_Pintscher, Jc3s5h, Smalyshev, Jonas, thiemowmde, Aklapper, mschwarzer, Avner, Lewizho99, Maathavan, debt, Gehel, D3r1ck01, FloNight, Xmlizer, Izno, jkroll, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, Deskana, Manybubbles, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
