Simon Cox wrote:
> My understanding was that a syntax for indicating spans
> (disjoint or not) within a single (sub-)element is
> intended, rather than using repeating (sub-)elements
> min/max etc - ie the contents of a single DC.Date might
> include several date/times linked with suitable operators
> (eg "-" , "," , "..." etc) - this would be comparable with
> the proposed DC.Coverage.Polygon which has multiple
> vertices.
Yes, I understood that to be the current wish of the date group, too. I
understood it, though, as their current RECOMMENDATION within an ongoing
debate, rather than a final decision.
It certainly makes sense for the Coverage and Date groups to agree on
the best syntax for expressing numeric dates and numeric date ranges,
and the two should work together on this, rather than one group imposing
a solution on the other (which certainly DOESN'T appear to be the case,
so that's good!).
The Coverage group DID discuss numeric date ranges a while back, and as
I remember it, decided that it was much simpler to express the range as
a t.min and t.max, rather than as a range. It was felt that the two
separate elements would be easier to handle mechanically than a range,
whilst remaining essentially as legible to the human eye as a single
numeric range.
Thus;
1971 as t.min
1997 as t.max
can be relatively easily manipulated by a computer, AND displayed to the
user as "Date range: 1971-1997" or equivalent.
1971-1997 as t
was felt to be potentially less flexible.
Assuming I've expressed the Coverage group's reasoning correctly (anyone
else from the group care to comment?), would the Date group like to
explain once more why they prefer a date range sub-element, allowing
everyone else to weigh up the pro's and con's of each approach?
Paul
--
== paul miller ================== [log in to unmask] ==
collections manager, archaeology data service, king's manor
york, YO1 2EP, UK tel: +44 (0)1904 43 3954
== http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ahds/ ==== fax: +44 (0)1904 43 3939 ==
|