More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM Subject: Re: A three level suggestion To: [email protected] Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth considering further. The spec could be represented as: Level 0: a profile of 8601 Level 1: first-level extensions Level 2: second level extensions And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support for level 2 includes support for level 1). Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features. For level 1, I suggest: - uncertain/approximate excluding internal. - intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal expressions, but including open and unknown. - masking with "u" Level 2: - Lists (one of a set, all of a set) - internal uncertain/approximate - temporal expressions - calendar - long year - season - masking with "x" Please comment. I will hold off on further BNF changes pending some agreement on this. --Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DATETIME] A three level suggestion > > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Saašha Metsärantala <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I wonder what you think about the following suggestion. > > > > Keeping in mind that EDTF is thought of as > > > > "both a profile of and extension to ISO 8601" > > > > according to > > > > http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/spec.html > > > > we could skip "reinventing the wheel", define the first EDTF level as > > a profile of ISO 8601 and just add some constraints on ISO 8601 to > > build the first level of EDTF. This could make both the BNF and the > > coming regexes easier to write, just carving away what we do not want > have. > > > > Thereafter, we could have a second level thought of as an extension > of > > the first level. Thus, we could use the BNF just to add features to > > the first level. I'm particularly thinking of lists, "x", longYears, > > seasons and temporal expressions. There would not be any "uncertain, > > approximate, unspecified" here. Well, ... "temporal expressions" and > > seasons may contain a kind of approximation, but I suggest to place > > them in the second level anyway. > > - where would intervals go? > - not clear why 'x' is here and not below? > > Bruce > > > Thereafter, we could have a third level thought of as an extension of > > the second level. Thus, we could use the BNF just to add features to > > the second level. I'm particularly thinking of "?", "~" and "u". > There > > we would introduce "uncertain, approximate, unspecified". > > > > Comments are welcome! > > > > Regards! > > > > Saašha, > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Discover what all the cheering's about. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-dev2dev2 _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
