Open a new thread for discussion of calendar models in general.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Markus Krötzsch
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01.07.2015 16:00, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Markus Krötzsch
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Pierpaolo,
>>>
>>> This thread was only about Julian and Gregorian calendar dates. If and
>>> how
>>> other calendar models should be supported in some future is another
>>> (potentially big) discussion. As you said, there are many issues there.
>>> Let's first make sure that we handle the "easy" 99.9% of cases correctly
>>> before discussing any more complicated options.
>>
>>
>> Lydia Pintscher in the starting email explained that there's a model
>> for calendars, and unfortunately this model could be (and has been)
>> interpreted in two ways (AFAIU).
>>
>> My intention was to point out that one of the two interpretations is
>> not sound.  This leaves the other one as the only viable one.
>
>
> To clarify: the problem that Lydia discussed has occurred on another (more
> technical) level. It is not about the question whether there are further
> calendar models that are incompatible to Julian and Gregorian, but about the
> two calendar models that are captured by what Wikidata calls the "date"
> type. This type does not support dates that cannot be converted into one
> another. This is the usual trade-off you have when building a data-based
> system: you have to restrict the possible formats to ensure that the
> resulting data is still usable. For example, we could capture many more
> complex things and nuances of reality in free text, but then we would not
> have Wikidata but Wikipedia ;-)
>
> What is colloquially called a calendar date can be anywhere between clearly
> defined time point to a rough suggestion of a relative time frame. Wikidata
> already makes a lot of commitments towards a less strict notion of "date",
> many of which are not fully supported and correctly used now (timezones,
> "before" and "after" -- even the meaning of "precision" is all but clear).
> Many of these features have been implemented as a response to user queries
> for making date entry even more general, to cover even more corner cases.
> For data consumers, this makes the data much harder to use. It creates a
> cost for everyone. So far, there is only the cost, and not the benefit (or
> is anybody using "before" and "after"? Yet I have to deal with it when
> reading data!). Let's first make use of what we have (this includes proper
> UI support for timezone annotation and precision windows), before discussing
> even more complex notions of calendar and time.
>
> But don't worry: there will surely be more calendar models that can be
> supported properly, in a specified and clear way. However, it is definitely
> not planned that all possible calendar models will at some time be
> implemented. A basic design goal of the "date" type in Wikidata is that
> dates remain compatible on the day level. Calendars that are too far away
> from this should use own properties (maybe of type string, maybe of another
> special date type). One can then give approximate Gregorian/Julian dates in
> addition by using the standard date properties of Wikidata (these
> approximate dates would then not capture the exact moment, but the best
> possible approximation). In this way, one can get the best of both worlds:
> exact date information in native calendar models and maximal compatibility
> with major time-based applications (such as Histropedia) and query services
> (all time-related query functions in SPARQL databases are based on Gregorian
> dates).
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>> P.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Reply via email to