On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Frank Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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, > > That was my sense as well, except that I think we could settle on > saying CSL could support levels 0 and 1, plus a few features in 2? > > I also conclude it's unlikely we'd want to suggest any concrete > changes to the way Ray has sliced the levels?
Sorry forgot to respond to this question. The levels look fine to me too. > >> 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 --. > > Nice list; on quick look, I agree. > > Bruce > >> **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 >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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
