Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Standard form for a perod of time

Expand Messages
  • o-Dzin Tridral
    Dear all, I would like to know whether the folowing means 8pm-midnight on the 3rd February 2001 : 2001-02-03T20/24 The part I m not sure about is the /24.
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear all,

      I would like to know whether the folowing means
      8pm-midnight on the 3rd February 2001 :

      2001-02-03T20/24

      The part I'm not sure about is the /24. Should this be /T24 or is the
      24 sufficient?

      I've looked at the standard (1988 copy). It mentions that you can
      leave out parts of the date in a time period, but it's not explicit on
      what to do with the time portion.

      Many thanks.

      'o-Dzin
    • bobneifert@yahoo.com
      Yes, 2001-02-03T20/24 is equivalent to 2001-02-03T20/2001-02-03T24, and to 2001-02-03T20/2001-02-04T00. But what about 2001-02-03T20/00? According to section
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, 2001-02-03T20/24 is equivalent to 2001-02-03T20/2001-02-03T24,
        and to 2001-02-03T20/2001-02-04T00.

        But what about 2001-02-03T20/00? According to section 5.5.4 of
        ISO8601:1988(E), the free PDF file, this expression is equivalent only
        to 2001-02-03T20/2001-02-03T00.

        The T is not necessary in "/24" because it is truncated along with the
        2001-02-03. 2001-02-03T20/04T00 requires a T in both parts to separate
        the days from the hours.

        --- In ISO8601@y..., "o-Dzin Tridral" <Tridral@B...> wrote:
        > Dear all,
        >
        > I would like to know whether the folowing means
        > 8pm-midnight on the 3rd February 2001 :
        >
        > 2001-02-03T20/24
        >
        > The part I'm not sure about is the /24. Should this be /T24 or is
        the
        > 24 sufficient?
        >
        > I've looked at the standard (1988 copy). It mentions that you can
        > leave out parts of the date in a time period, but it's not explicit
        on
        > what to do with the time portion.
        >
        > Many thanks.
        >
        > 'o-Dzin
      • Thorvaldur Gunnlaugsson
        In my attempts to present and explain the ISO8601 standard here in Iceland I have found most annoying the lack of a letter for weekday. I have had the response
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 21, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In my attempts to present and explain the ISO8601 standard
          here in Iceland I have found most annoying the lack of a
          letter for weekday.
          I have had the response from this group that the weekday can
          be spelled out, but as English is not yet the universal
          standard language, this is not a solution for us.
          As W is used for the double digit week number, V could
          be used to precede the single digit weekday.
          The letter V is the initial for week in some languages.
          I have considered other possibilities e.g. S(semana) from
          Latin languages, U(uge) Danish and J or G for day in French
          and Italian, but think these are more confusing.
          It would ease the acceptance of the standard if we had a
          proposal of how to resolve this soon.

          I also have some other minor complaints about the publicly
          available version of the standard:
          1 - The ambiguity of using M for both Month and Minute
          certainly complicates parsing. If this was resolved
          by using upper/lower case letters or a different letter
          for month the T would not be needed in duration.
          2 - The use of W for both preceding the Week number and
          in duration to indicate a period of weeks also complicates
          parsing (most importantly for the human eye).
          If V was used for weekday the W could be phased
          out in the date, e.g. 2001-10V7 in stead of 2001W10-7.
          The W would then be used only in duration.
          The P preceding duration would then never be needed
          though it might be judged desireable to keep it.
          (there have been comments here about excluding redundancy)
          3 - When hour or minute is omitted the colon is replaced by
          a hyphen thereby causing possible confusion with negative
          local time designation. To me T:10 is clearer and looks
          better than T-10 for the tenth minute, then
          2001-01-01T-10 would be unambiguous as local time.
          Why would anyone want to specify day with only the local time
          deviation? For instance, if it is to be followed with
          a listing of several timings for that day.


          Some additional thoughts:

          On 2001-01-23 Ian said:
          >Repetitive events are usually just listed by their dates.
          Is SPACE/TAB/NL the prefered separator in a list of times?
          I assume that in a list of times the ommited components default
          to the latest specified?

          I have seen in air travel schedules when times are given
          for a given date but then a flight exceeds 24:00, then the time
          is given with a + appended which means the day after, e.g.
          - take off 22:30 - landing 01:44+
          This seems to be rather common and convenient but may be
          get confusing if there is also a local time deviation.

          The letter for local time is J. It looks to me logical
          to replace the T with Z or J accordingly:
          e.g. 2001-01-11Z12:48 = 2001-01-11J10:48-2

          I had a look at the revised 2000 version of the standard.
          The newly added part about repeated events did not look
          good at first sight, but it may be that I misunderstood
          something. The words recurrent and recursive seemd to be
          used interchangeably. The standard both has a R3/duration
          and duration#3 to say something will be repeated three times
          but I did not see anything about interval.
          The most common thing in a schedule is something which
          has a duration an then gets repeated at regular intervals
          To specify that an event starts on 2001-06-22T12:30 and
          lasts 1H and gets repeated every other week three times
          I would like to see something like:
          2001-06-22T12:30/1H3R2W or
          2001-06-22T12:30P1H3R2W

          Does the groop have any feelings about this?
          Does it matter at all what is written here?

          Th.G. - thg@...
        • Bob Hirsch
          ... I haven t seen the 2000 version, but in the last version of the ISO8601 standard I recall, the weekday was not part of the date representation. I think
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 21, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Thorvaldur Gunnlaugsson wrote (in part):


            > In my attempts to present and explain the ISO8601 standard
            > here in Iceland I have found most annoying the lack of a
            > letter for weekday.
            > I have had the response from this group that the weekday can
            > be spelled out, but as English is not yet the universal
            > standard language, this is not a solution for us.

            I haven't seen the 2000 version, but in the last version of the ISO8601
            standard I recall, the weekday was not part of the date representation.
            I think this makes a certain amount of sense. As far as I know, there is
            international agreement to the convention that there is a 'secular'
            calendar with twelve months per year, 24 hours in a day, etc. But there
            isn't much consensus about the names of months or days of the week, so
            those have been omitted from the standard for date representation. It's
            also a bit of a problem to introduce alphabetic day or month names if the
            names do not come in a sortable order.

            If you'd like to propose another representation that's convenient for you,
            be my guest, but it remains to be seen if everyone else will find it
            equally convenient and want to adopt it.

            > It would ease the acceptance of the standard if we had a
            > proposal of how to resolve this soon.

            You could propose resolving it by making the Icelandic names of days and
            months the standard. That would certainly ease acceptance in Iceland.


            > Does the group have any feelings about this?

            Although I'm giving you a hard time about it, my feeling is that I like it
            that you're interested in inventing something.


            > Does it matter at all what is written here?

            I think it matters *some* to put issues of interest on the table.
            If you're not a participant on the standards committee, it probably won't
            have a big impact. I imagine the issues you are noticing (the
            representation isn't the same one you're familiar with) has been considered
            before now, and the decision thus far is to leave out localization items so
            the standard is mostly OK anywhere instead of quite nice in some places and
            nasty in others.

            --
            Bob Hirsch <Bob@...>
            The preceding has been an opinion by a concerned citizen.
          • Thorvaldur Gunnlaugsson
            ... It certainly is. If you want to say monday it is W-1, sunday W-7. This looks so bad that it is unuseable. I am asking for something like just V1, V7. ...
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 22, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On 2001-02-21 22:47:52 -0800 Bob Hirsch wrote:
              >
              > Thorvaldur Gunnlaugsson wrote (in part):
              >
              >
              > > In my attempts to present and explain the ISO8601 standard
              > > here in Iceland I have found most annoying the lack of a
              > > letter for weekday.
              > > I have had the response from this group that the weekday can
              > > be spelled out, but as English is not yet the universal
              > > standard language, this is not a solution for us.
              >
              > I haven't seen the 2000 version, but in the last version of the ISO8601
              > standard I recall, the weekday was not part of the date representation.

              It certainly is. If you want to say monday it is W-1, sunday W-7.
              This looks so bad that it is unuseable.
              I am asking for something like just V1, V7.

              > I think this makes a certain amount of sense. As far as I know, there is
              > international agreement to the convention that there is a 'secular'
              > calendar with twelve months per year, 24 hours in a day, etc. But there
              > isn't much consensus about the names of months or days of the week, so
              > those have been omitted from the standard for date representation. It's
              > also a bit of a problem to introduce alphabetic day or month names if the
              > names do not come in a sortable order.

              Yes, I was precisely not asking for that.

              >
              > If you'd like to propose another representation that's convenient for you,
              > be my guest, but it remains to be seen if everyone else will find it
              > equally convenient and want to adopt it.

              To spell it out clearly, my proposal was V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7
              for the week days.
              Another solution would be w1 to w7 if both upper and lowercase is used.

              Messages must be read carefully before they are responded to
              since we are hopefully taking up time from a lot of people.
              One can mail directly to the author of a message to ask for
              clarifications before responding.

              Th.G.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.