eric j. miller wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Misha Wolf wrote:
>> The examples given suggest this standard does not handle times. In many
>> fields, information older than an hour, or even than 15 minutes, is stale.
>> Financial information and news in general are examples. Such items require
>
>While I agree with this statement, an underlying assumption here is
>that individual "metadata" records are being created for each of these
>"objects" associated with relatively small time frames...
>
>Is this a correct assumption, or would perhaps a more general metadata
>record broadly describing this "service" be more
>sufficient/appropriate?
Many HTML pages and metadata records will need time stamps accurate to
minutes and seconds. This applies not just to the date+time of creation,
but also to all other date+times, eg:
ValidFrom
The date+time from which the resource is valid.
ValidTo
The date+time after which the resource is no longer valid.
[The above are taken from "Dublin Core Qualifiers", by Jon Knight and Martin
Hamilton, and are amended by the addition of "+time".]
>Regardless of this, however, it's clear that there is no "one way" of
>dealing with time and thus the ability to qualify the value is indeed
>required.
We may reach consensus on a default scheme in time for the RFC as (Western!)
dates and times are so highly structured.
>eric j. miller <URL:http://purl.oclc.org/net/eric>
>[log in to unmask] Office of Research, OCLC, Inc.
>[log in to unmask] Dept. of Geography, The Ohio State University
Misha
|