I thought I saw in one of Eric's recent messages that registering ISO 8601
basic had been rejected. Perhaps we can reconsider this.
I'm not sure what the best way is to get extensions done. Yes, it would
take some time to get through ISO. It would take less time to do something
through NISO, which was where I had thought of starting. Then that could
be brought to ISO. At the very least we could get something registered
with NISO as part of the new fairly lightweight registration process. It
would be a start anyway.
By the way, I was able to get a copy of the revised ISO 8601-- will take a
look at it later today I hope (since you have to order and pay for it, I
don't know how many others actually have it in their hands).
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Misha Wolf wrote:
> Hi Rebecca,
> There appears to have been a misunderstanding. It is *not*
> the case that registering an "ISO 8601 basic" profile has
> been rejected. Indeed, it hasn't even been discussed. I,
> for one, would fully support such a profile.
> Regarding the items grouped under your point 2, I would say
> that getting something changed in ISO 8601 could be an
> interesting l-o-n-g-term project, but if you are interested
> in using any of the stuff in this lifetime, it would be best
> to look to other solutions. I advocate examining these
> requirements one by one and looking for appropriate solutions.
> I do not believe that a single solution fits them all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Date Working Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: 10 August 2005 22:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Adding ISO 8601 as a scheme -- discussion
> There are 2 things I want to be able to do:
> 1. Have a way to refer to an encoding scheme that uses what in ISO 8601
> called the "basic format" for date and time, i.e. YYYYMMDD etc. without
> hyphens. W3CDTF uses the "extended format", i.e. YYYY-MM-DD etc. with
> 2. Have a mechanism to accommodate the other types of dates we talked
> about, most of which are not in ISO 8601. These include:
> approximate dates
> questionable dates
> open ended date ranges
> BCE dates
> Non-Gregorian dates
> and maybe also:
> (the latter 2 have been expressed as needed in Z39.50 several years
> To get my need #1, a profile of ISO8601 could be done to include that
> leave out what in ISO8601 we don't want. But I couldn't get those
> constructs not now included in 8601 in a profile because they weren't
> there to begin with.
> I am trying to get a copy of the new version from NISO-- as we know ISO
> doesn't make these freely available. To my knowledge those expressions
> date still aren't accommodated.
> So there would need to be an extension or revision to 8601 rather than a
> profile to get #2.
> If DCMI were to register all of ISO8601 then I guess I would have #1
> available, although it still wouldn't be explicit that what I'm using is
> the basic notation in ISO8601, which was my point all along. And I'm
> that registering ISO8601 basic was rejected so I'll have to live with
> it. I don't have the energy to fight this one any more.
> I'm thinking about doing the extensions within NISO to attempt to get
> 8601 revised to include these. Emphasize the word "thinking".
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
> To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo
> 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.