More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress rden@loc.gov
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: A three level suggestion
To: DATETIME@listserv.loc.gov
Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth
considering further.
The spec could be represented as:
Level 0: a profile of 8601
Level 1: first-level extensions
Level 2: second level extensions
And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support
for level 2 includes support for level 1).
Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
For level 1, I suggest:
- uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
- intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal
expressions, but including open and unknown.
- masking with “u”
Level 2:
- Lists (one of a set, all of a set)
- internal uncertain/approximate
- temporal expressions
- calendar
- long year
- season
- masking with “x”
Please comment. I will hold off on further BNF changes pending some
agreement on this.
–Ray
More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress rden@loc.gov
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: A three level suggestion
To: DATETIME@listserv.loc.gov
Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth
considering further.
The spec could be represented as:
Level 0: a profile of 8601
Level 1: first-level extensions
Level 2: second level extensions
And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support
for level 2 includes support for level 1).
Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
For level 1, I suggest:
- uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
- intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal
expressions, but including open and unknown.
- masking with “u”
The specification certainly is firming up. Dates for citation purposes
wouldn’t fit neatly into the level scheme, but the feature list is
very helpful for clarity.
In a quck trawl, I’ve marked items that seem fully within scope for
citation dates with **, those which could be used with some data loss
with ++, and those which seem out of scope without some extension of
CSL with --.
**101 Date (with hyphen)
++102 Date and time (date with hyphen, time with colon)
**103 Year and month
**105 Year
–108 Duration
++109 Date with time zone indicator
**111 Negative year
–203 100 year period
**208 Interval: years
**209 Interval: months
**210 Interval: days
–211 Interval: start and duration
++301 uncertain year
++302 uncertain year-month
–3021 Year known, uncertain month within year
++303 uncertain date
–304 year, month known; uncertain day
–305 uncertain year; month, day known
++306 Approximate year
++307 Approximate month
++308 Approximate day
++309 Time and day approximate
–310 Time is approximate but the event occurred on a known day
–311 Day is approximate; year month, time known.
–312 unspecified year within a known decade
–313 unspecified month within a known year
–314 unspecified day within a known month
–315 Internal “unspecified”
–316 One of a set
–317 Multiple dates
–3171 Multiple Dates via mask character
**320 Interval: unknown start
**321 Interval: unknown end
–322 Interval: open end
–325 Named period or event as the endpoint of an interval
–326 Temporal Expressions; Named periods/event
–329 Calendar
–330 Year requiring more than four digits
++331 Season
More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress rden@loc.gov
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: A three level suggestion
To: DATETIME@listserv.loc.gov
Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth
considering further.
The spec could be represented as:
Level 0: a profile of 8601
Level 1: first-level extensions
Level 2: second level extensions
And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support
for level 2 includes support for level 1).
Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
For level 1, I suggest:
- uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
- intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal
expressions, but including open and unknown.
- masking with “u”
The specification certainly is firming up. Dates for citation purposes
wouldn’t fit neatly into the level scheme,
That was my sense as well, except that I think we could settle on
saying CSL could support levels 0 and 1, plus a few features in 2?
I also conclude it’s unlikely we’d want to suggest any concrete
changes to the way Ray has sliced the levels?
but the feature list is
very helpful for clarity.
In a quck trawl, I’ve marked items that seem fully within scope for
citation dates with **, those which could be used with some data loss
with ++, and those which seem out of scope without some extension of
CSL with --.
Nice list; on quick look, I agree.
Bruce
More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress rden@loc.gov
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: A three level suggestion
To: DATETIME@listserv.loc.gov
Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth
considering further.
The spec could be represented as:
Level 0: a profile of 8601
Level 1: first-level extensions
Level 2: second level extensions
And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support
for level 2 includes support for level 1).
Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
For level 1, I suggest:
- uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
- intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal
expressions, but including open and unknown.
- masking with “u”
The specification certainly is firming up. Dates for citation purposes
wouldn’t fit neatly into the level scheme,
That was my sense as well, except that I think we could settle on
saying CSL could support levels 0 and 1, plus a few features in 2?
I also conclude it’s unlikely we’d want to suggest any concrete
changes to the way Ray has sliced the levels?
but the feature list is
very helpful for clarity.
In a quck trawl, I’ve marked items that seem fully within scope for
citation dates with **, those which could be used with some data loss
with ++, and those which seem out of scope without some extension of
CSL with --.
Nice list; on quick look, I agree.
Bruce
I had one second thought after posting. We could map the pinpoint
uncertain dates as plain global “circa”, to allow the imprecision to
be recorded (more, ah, precisely) in an entry, although the data isn’t
fully represented in a rendered citation. So maybe:
**101 Date (with hyphen)
++102 Date and time (date with hyphen, time with colon)
**103 Year and month
**105 Year
–108 Duration
++109 Date with time zone indicator
**111 Negative year
–203 100 year period
**208 Interval: years
**209 Interval: months
**210 Interval: days
–211 Interval: start and duration
++301 uncertain year
++302 uncertain year-month
++3021 Year known, uncertain month within year
++303 uncertain date
++304 year, month known; uncertain day
++305 uncertain year; month, day known
++306 Approximate year
++307 Approximate month
++308 Approximate day
++309 Time and day approximate
++310 Time is approximate but the event occurred on a known day
++311 Day is approximate; year month, time known.
–312 unspecified year within a known decade
–313 unspecified month within a known year
–314 unspecified day within a known month
–315 Internal “unspecified”
–316 One of a set
–317 Multiple dates
–3171 Multiple Dates via mask character
**320 Interval: unknown start
**321 Interval: unknown end
–322 Interval: open end
–325 Named period or event as the endpoint of an interval
–326 Temporal Expressions; Named periods/event
–329 Calendar
–330 Year requiring more than four digits
++331 Season
Frank
More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress rden@loc.gov
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: A three level suggestion
To: DATETIME@listserv.loc.gov
Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth
considering further.
The spec could be represented as:
Level 0: a profile of 8601
Level 1: first-level extensions
Level 2: second level extensions
And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support
for level 2 includes support for level 1).
Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
For level 1, I suggest:
- uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
- intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal
expressions, but including open and unknown.
- masking with “u”
The specification certainly is firming up. Dates for citation purposes
wouldn’t fit neatly into the level scheme,
That was my sense as well, except that I think we could settle on
saying CSL could support levels 0 and 1, plus a few features in 2?
In Level 1, we could treat “open” the same as “unknown end” (in terms
of rendering); but the only use case seems to be for a citation to and
entire run of serials, so I’m not sure it’s in scope for CSL?
Also in Level 1, I’m not sure what the processor should do with the
“u” mask character. The choices seem to be (a) implicitly render it as
“x” by convention, with or without a “circa” term in rendered output;
(b) extend CSL to allow the behavior to be defined (which seems like
overkill); or (c) treat the data as invalid (and so probably dumping
it out as a literal string).
Not sure what to do there. In the short term at least, Zotero
translators (say) are probably not going to recognize and pass in “u”
masked dates anyway, since they would be encoded in unpredictable ways
in the source from which field content is derived. So whatever choice
is made, it probably wouldn’t affect much content or many users.
More on EDTF that has relevance for CSL. Thoughts?
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress rden@loc.gov
Date: Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: A three level suggestion
To: DATETIME@listserv.loc.gov
Saašha, I do think the three-level suggestion has merit and is worth
considering further.
The spec could be represented as:
Level 0: a profile of 8601
Level 1: first-level extensions
Level 2: second level extensions
And to claim conformance, you must at least support level 1 (support
for level 2 includes support for level 1).
Level 0 would be the 100 and 200 features.
For level 1, I suggest:
- uncertain/approximate excluding internal.
- intervals, excluding those with uncertain/approximate and temporal
expressions, but including open and unknown.
- masking with “u”
The specification certainly is firming up. Dates for citation purposes
wouldn’t fit neatly into the level scheme,
That was my sense as well, except that I think we could settle on
saying CSL could support levels 0 and 1, plus a few features in 2?
I also conclude it’s unlikely we’d want to suggest any concrete
changes to the way Ray has sliced the levels?
Sorry forgot to respond to this question. The levels look fine to me too.