On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> wrote: > 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"
The specification certainly is firming up. Dates for citation purposes wouldn't fit neatly into the level scheme, but the feature list is very helpful for clarity. In a quck trawl, I've marked items that seem fully within scope for citation dates with **, those which could be used with some data loss with ++, and those which seem out of scope without some extension of CSL with --. **101 Date (with hyphen) ++102 Date and time (date with hyphen, time with colon) **103 Year and month **105 Year --108 Duration ++109 Date with time zone indicator **111 Negative year --203 100 year period **208 Interval: years **209 Interval: months **210 Interval: days --211 Interval: start and duration ++301 uncertain year ++302 uncertain year-month --3021 Year known, uncertain month within year ++303 uncertain date --304 year, month known; uncertain day --305 uncertain year; month, day known ++306 Approximate year ++307 Approximate month ++308 Approximate day ++309 Time and day approximate --310 Time is approximate but the event occurred on a known day --311 Day is approximate; year month, time known. --312 unspecified year within a known decade --313 unspecified month within a known year --314 unspecified day within a known month --315 Internal "unspecified" --316 One of a set --317 Multiple dates --3171 Multiple Dates via mask character **320 Interval: unknown start **321 Interval: unknown end --322 Interval: open end --325 Named period or event as the endpoint of an interval --326 Temporal Expressions; Named periods/event --329 Calendar --330 Year requiring more than four digits ++331 Season > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
