How about ...
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. The profile supports a number of levels of granularity,
ranging from a year (eg 1997), through a complete date (eg 1997-07-16), to
a complete date plus hours, minutes, seconds and a decimal fraction of a
second. In those cases where an ISO 8601 date format is not suitable
(eg the date precedes year 0 of the Christian Era), an appropriate scheme
should be used and be identified in an unambiguous manner.
Misha
> 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|