The issue of whether the W3C profile of ISO8601 is too restrictive (it does
not accommodate date ranges) has been raised before.
If this is the only obvious deficiency, perhaps it is worth the effort to
amend WTN8601.
Of course, others may choose to use a full ISO 8601 scheme as a qualifier,
but I think as a general community standard, the simpler one is more likely
to serve us better.
Is there anyone among those who require this additional capability who might
be willing to invest in revising the WTN 8601 standard? Misha Wolf of
Reuters is the author of the profile, but I also know he is very busy at the
moment and may not be able to participate.
stu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A. Maberry [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 6:48 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [dchtml] WTN8601 vs ISO8601 (fwd)
>
> One problem I see is that the W3C profile is too stripped down. For
> instance, in our applications we really run into the need for *date
> ranges*, which are not addressed in the W3C profile cited in John Kunze's
> original message (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime). There may be some
> excess baggage in ISO8601, but there may also be some essential things
> that the W3C profile leaves out.
>
> After all, ability to do a date range seems pretty basic, but until now
> largely ignored by DC and W3C. Even though we aren't trying to do anything
> super complex here and WTN8601 is about all we need for formatting single
> dates, we will *have to* specify the scheme "ISO8601" just because we need
> some simple date range capability. So in the words of John Kunze we will
> have to
>
> >pollute existing metadata collections, incorrectly advising others that
> >processing a Date string may require the heavy software artillery of a
> >fully compliant ISO8601 parser
>
> even though we do not mean "ISO8601--all of it".
>
> ************
> Diana Brooking (206) 543-8405
> Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
> Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
> University of Washington
> Box 352900
> Seattle WA 98195-2900
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:08:12 +0200
> > From: Gisle Hannemyr <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: John A. Kunze <[log in to unmask]>
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [dchtml] WTN8601 vs ISO8601
> >
> > "John A. Kunze" wrote:
> > > How should we name our canonical Date scheme (the W3C profile of
> ISO8601)?
> >
> > I vote for "WTN8601"!
> >
>
> <snip>
> Gisle Hannemayr wrote:
> >
> > If we say "ISO8601" we should mean "ISO8601" -- all of it.
> >
> > However, adopting all of ISO 8601 is probably not a very good idea.
> There
> > is lot of excess baggage in there that we can and should do without.
> > IMHO ISO8601 suffers from the same disease that killed ISO/OSI as an
> > interconnection standard: too many options, setting the stage for non-
> > interworking implementations. The W3C profile makes a lot more sense
> > from an implementation viewpoint. So we choose to use that, and we
> > should make that choice apparent and unambiguous through our choice of
> > name for that particular scheme.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|