I'm worried about getting squashed underneath the boots of all the folks
wanting to settle their differences over the name and semantics of the
date element. Could we discuss the granularity question separately from
those momentous issues? Maybe those of us interested in granularity
should go and find some snowballs to examine while the adults are having
their discussion. Or isn't it yet the season for snowballs?
Misha
> I think this is a major agenda item for the Monday afternoon Open
> Issues Plenary
>
> we need to settle DATE
>
> come prepared with arguments and strawman proposals
>
> stu
>
>
> On Thursday, October 02, 1997 3:34 PM, Misha Wolf
> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> > There are a number of eggs in the air regarding the date element.
> They
> > include:
> >
> > 1. its name,
> > 2. its semantics,
> > 3. its granularity,
> > 4. dates before the introduction of the Georgian calendar.
> >
> > This mail deals only with point 3. If at all possible, I'd like to
> settle
> > the granularity issue. The current wording on the DC Web site is:
> >
> > [The semantic definition goes here]
> > Recommended best practice is an 8 digit number in the form
> YYYY-MM-DD
> > as defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime, a profile of ISO
> 8601.
> > In this scheme, the date element 1994-11-05 corresponds to November
> 5,
> > 1994. Many other schema are possible, but if used, they should be
> > identified in an unambiguous manner.
> >
> > On September 29 I mailed a suggested wording which allows the various
> > granularities permitted by the profile. I have seen no replies on the
>
> > meta2 list and don't know whether this indicates agreement,
> disagreement
> > or boredom. The suggested wording is:
> >
> > [The semantic definition goes here]
> > Recommended best practice is a date encoded according to
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime, 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 identified in an
> > unambiguous manner.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > Misha Wolf Email: [log in to unmask] 85 Fleet Street
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
|