Stu:
Though I think this is an improvement, I don't think I'm ready to dismiss
"Date relevant to the resource" as an alternative. Yes, I know Carl thinks
that an unqualified date is useless, and I hate to disagree with Carl on
anything (!), but, *if* we think we want to use qualifiers for dates, I
think we need to bite the bullet now and make the default date definition
as open as possible.
Let's wait and argue in Helsinki before you change the definition. Heck,
you wouldn't want to miss that one, would you?
Diane
>This proposed wording change reflects Misha's and Ricky's modifications.
>
>It does not address Carl's concerns about date, but I think this is an
>issue for Helsinki, and I don't want to wait to update the reference
>document if the following is uncontroversial.
>
>stu
>--------------------
>Date
>
>Label: DATE
>
> The date the resource was issued. Recommended best practice is a date
>encoded according to
> http://www.w3.org/..., a profile of the ISO 8601 date encoding
>standard.
>
> Six levels of granularity arespecified in the profile, namely:
>
> Year:
> YYYY (eg 1997)
> Year and month:
> YYYY-MM (eg 1997-07)
> Complete date:
> YYYY-MM-DD (eg 1997-07-16)
> Complete date plus hours and minutes:
> YYYY-MM-DDThh:mmTZD (eg 1997-07-16T19:20+01:00)
> Complete date plus hours, minutes and seconds:
> YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssTZD (eg 1997-07-16T19:20:30+01:00)
> Complete date plus hours, minutes, seconds and a decimal fraction
>of a second
> YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sTZD (eg 1997-07-16T19:20:30.45+01:00)
>
|