Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values

From: John Halleck (John.Halleck_at_utah.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 23 2001 - 01:13:53 CET

• Next message: Garry Petrie: "Re: Stations are primary"
• Previous message: Thrun Robert IHMD: "RE: Stations are primary"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul & Eleanor: "Dates: explicit fields and missing values"
• Next in thread: Peter MATTHEWS: "Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values"

Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id PAA30779 for cavexml-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:51:53 +0100
Received: from cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (nahaj_at_cor.oz.cc.utah.edu [155.99.2.2]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id BAA26943 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:14:00 +0100
Received: from localhost (nahaj_at_localhost) by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA22110; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:13:54 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:13:53 -0700 (MST)
From: John Halleck <John.Halleck_at_utah.edu>
To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
cc: Michael Lake <mikel_at_speleonics.com.au>
Subject: Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10102221702170.16386-100000@cor.oz.cc.utah.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch

> From: Michael Lake <mikel_at_speleonics.com.au>
> To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
> Subject: Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values
>
> Paul & Eleanor wrote:
> > to his own format. Month followed by day is the American format (but
> > Anyway, You should be able to detect a non-conforming format quick
> > enough as soon as someone surveys on a day of the month past the
> > 12th. :-)

> Yes if its written as 14-12-2001 we know that it must be dd-mm-yyyy but

> Date: 07-11-2001

> 7th day of November or the 11th day of July?

> You cannot detect a non-conforming format all of the time.
> QED. :-)

> Conclusion: we have to split the dd, mm and yyyy into either attributes
> of a date element or split then into individual elements. I'd go for
> attributes.

  I don't think the conclusion is warrented.
  We can define attributes to suit, and we could claim an attribute
  "data" to always be in ISO date format.

> <DATES><surveyDate year="1974" />
> <creationDate year="1998" month="01" day="10" />
> <modificationDate year="1999" month="06" day="22" />
> </DATES>

<Survey>
  <Creation date="1998-01-10" who="Nahaj G. Burynag" />
  <Modification date="1999-06-22" who="Edsel J Murphy" />
</Survey>

> Mike
 
> --

• Next message: Garry Petrie: "Re: Stations are primary"
• Previous message: Thrun Robert IHMD: "RE: Stations are primary"
• Maybe in reply to: Paul & Eleanor: "Dates: explicit fields and missing values"
• Next in thread: Peter MATTHEWS: "Re: Dates: explicit fields and missing values"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 18:00:01 CET