## Re: Assumptions ...

Expand Messages
• ... That would be a half-hour past midnight, i.e. 00:30, although it should properly be written with two 0s. Adding an extra digit would be redundant, since
Message 1 of 49 , Sep 27, 2006
--- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
wrote:
> If the fractional part of a day represents a time-of-day then
> oughtn't it to be preceded by a T? If so, then wouldn't it also
> require at least one digit before the decimal point (ummm... comma)?
>
> 2006-123T0,5

That would be a half-hour past midnight, i.e. 00:30, although it
should properly be written with two 0s.

Adding an extra digit would be redundant, since the whole number part
of the fraction is the day (of month, week or year). If fractional
days were to be permitted, then the time of day should not be
permitted with the date representation. That is, a decimal fraction
is permitted only for the lowest-order component, a date with a
fractional day could not also include a time of the day
representation, since the highest-order component of the latter is the
hour.

Likewise, when representing time of the day with a decimal fraction of
the hour, you would not represent 00:30 it as :0,5 or as 0,5: but as
00,5. The time designator T is always preceded by the day, and always
followed by the hour. Thus, a representation with a fractional day
would be date-only, even though the fraction could be converted to a
time of the day.

Which is all academic, since decimal fractions of days is not
permitted by the standard, actual use thereof not withstanding. I
would also point out that decimal fractions of years are also used
(although they do not correspond exactly to the Gregorian calendar).
Decimal fractions of months would be difficult to implement, however.

John Hynes
www.decimaltime.org
2006-09-27T11,0Z
• ... Not really. Although they share a collective consciousness, or whatever, they are made up of individual units, which are organized into adjuncts,
Message 49 of 49 , Oct 2, 2006
--- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult" <PIEBALDconsult@...>
wrote:
> I really thought someone would point out that "two groups of Borg" is
> an oxymoron.

Not really. Although they share a collective consciousness, or
whatever, they are made up of individual units, which are organized
into adjuncts, unimatrices, cubes, etc. It is possible to be situated
between two borg cubes, or merely between two groups of borgs coming
from opposite directions.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.