------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:46:44 -0400 From: "Rebecca S. Guenther" Subject: Re: Decision text for ISO 8601 encoding scheme To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Okay, in fact I think I'll change the text a bit. It is now: "This encoding scheme represents the alternative provided in ISO 8601 that does not include hyphens as separators between year, month, and day." change to: "This encoding scheme represents the alternative form specified in ISO 8601 as 'basic format', which does not include hyphens as separators between year, month, and day." References Note that it is a problem that ISO does not provide free access to its documents. However, I have bookmarked the final draft of the 2000 revision to ISO 8601 which explains the different alternatives. I recommend including it as a reference: 1. ISO 8601:2000 Representation of dates and times, second edition Final draft, as edited and published by the ISO/CS http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200104/pdf00005.pdf (alternatives detailed in 5.2.1.1) 2. Date and Time Formats http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime This note defines a profile of ISO 8601, which specifies the "extended format" representation, i.e. inclusion of hyphens between year, month and day. 3. XML Schema: Datatypes (Appendix D: ISO 8601 Date and Time Formats) http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats This W3C recommendation is part 2 of the specification of the XML Schema language and provides more detail on ISO formats. Rebecca On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Thomas Baker wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 11:01:39AM -0400, Rebecca Guenther wrote: > > I just looked at the decision text and it looks fine to me. What further > > do I need to do? > > According to > http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/iso8601/, > links to two W3C documents should be added, perhaps with some > accompanying text. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:42:19 +0100 From: Pete Johnston Subject: Re: Decision text for ISO 8601 encoding scheme To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom, Rebecca, > According to http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/iso8601/, > links to two W3C documents should be added, perhaps with some > accompanying text. Did you see Douglas Campbell's comments on the dc-date list? http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0409&L=dc-date&T=0&F=&S=&P=395 I think it needs to be absolutely clear whether the encoding scheme is intended to permit all of the options available in ISO8601. These two references may muddy the waters slightly: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime W3CDTF permits only a subset of ISO8601 (That's where we came in!) http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats The XML Schema datatypes also appear to diverge from ISO8601: ==== It should be pointed out that the datatypes described in this specification do not cover all the types of data covered by [ISO 8601], nor do they support all the lexical representations for those types of data. ==== So if these links are included, I think it needs to be clear what their inclusion signifies with regard to the encoding scheme. Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:10:35 -0400 From: "Rebecca S. Guenther" Subject: Re: Decision text for ISO 8601 encoding scheme To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Pete Johnston wrote: > Tom, Rebecca, > > > According to http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/ISSUES/iso8601/, > > links to two W3C documents should be added, perhaps with some > > accompanying text. > > Did you see Douglas Campbell's comments on the dc-date list? > > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0409&L=dc-date&T=0&F=&S > =&P=395 > > I think it needs to be absolutely clear whether the encoding scheme is > intended to permit all of the options available in ISO8601. The intent was only to allow the expression of date using what they call the "basic format", i.e. without hyphens. It is not supposed to address other permutations or date ranges. ISO doesn't really have separate designations for these various options. We could consider a different designation? Like "ISO 8601 basic" or ISO8601B. But we'll be making it up. Douglas Campbell's message talks particularly about date ranges, which hasn't been covered by DCMI. It was an issue in the DC-Lib AP. > These two references may muddy the waters slightly: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime W3CDTF permits only a subset of > ISO8601 (That's where we came in!) Right. The representation with hyphens separating YYYY and MM and DD etc. > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats The XML Schema datatypes > also appear to diverge from ISO8601: I only put it in because Tom told me to, but I don't really think it's all that relevant to the discussion, so would just as well leave it out. More confusing than anything. Rebecca ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:32:00 +0100 From: Pete Johnston Subject: Re: Decision text for ISO 8601 encoding scheme To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The intent was only to allow the expression of date using > what they call the "basic format", i.e. without hyphens. It > is not supposed to address other permutations or date ranges. > ISO doesn't really have separate designations for these > various options. We could consider a different designation? > Like "ISO 8601 basic" or ISO8601B. But we'll be making it up. Yes, but we _are_ making up the name anyway ;-) Douglas' instinctive assumption (and mine, initially, to be honest!) was that dcterms:ISO8601 would mean _any_ format permitted by ISO8601. "The thing with dcterms:ISO8601 is that if you're going to call it that, surely it can really only mean ISO 8601 in its entirety." http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0409&L=dc-date&T=0&F=&S=&P=659 I wasn't certain what the plan was, but I did say it was dangerous to make that assumption, and you shouldn't read too much into a name: "Well, I'd argue that dcterms:ISO8601 or more properly http://purl.org/dc/terms/ISO8601 is just a name. What that name/URIref denotes is up to the Usage Board to say. I agree that it might be confusing, but there's no reason they can't say it denotes some subset of the dates available under ISO8601." http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0409&L=dc-date&T=0&F=&S=&P=797 But having said that, I do have some sympathy with Douglas' position, especially given that (AFAIK) DC doesn't impose any similar "qualifications" (!) in the definitions of our other terms that reference other specs and standards: the references to the RFCs and other ISO standards just mean "the value space as defined in RFCxxx or ISOxxx". So if DC does impose some caveats here, it has to be very clear. > Douglas Campbell's message talks particularly about date > ranges, which hasn't been covered by DCMI. It was an issue in > the DC-Lib AP. So, to be absolutely clear on this issue, can I just ask whether this new encoding scheme (whatever it is called) permits date ranges or not? > I only put it in because Tom told me to, but I don't really > think it's all that relevant to the discussion, so would just > as well leave it out. More confusing than anything. I think so, yes. Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 From: Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:10:35PM -0400, Rebecca Guenther wrote: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats The XML Schema datatypes > > also appear to diverge from ISO8601: > > I only put it in because Tom told me to, but I don't really think it's all > that relevant to the discussion, so would just as well leave it out. More > confusing than anything. According to the notes in the Bath meeting packet (http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/ISSUES/registration-proposals/), the additions were suggested by Roland and agreed to by Rebecca: > In Ithaca in June 2003, we discussed proposals for several > encoding schemes [1]. > > The Ithaca notes show we approved two proposals [2]: > -- http://purl.org/dc/terms/ISO8601 (by a vote of 7 to 1) > -- http://purl.org/dc/terms/AAT (by a vote of 8 to 0) > > We also decided [2]: "New terms to go in the terms namespace > with one or two exceptions (MARC, DOI?). Discussions and > agreement on new terms to be continued online in early to > mid-July." > > I see the proposals were discussed in July 2003 [3,4,5] > and then in Seattle, and this would appear to be the state > of affairs: > > 1) http://purl.org/dc/terms/ISO8601 > Discussed and approved. I have put a draft of the decision text at > http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/03/2004-01.ISO8601.txt. > If Rebecca confirms this is accurate, we can publish it after the > Bath meeting. > > Note that Roland suggested [4]: "As far as ISO > 8601 is concerned i refer to the Abstract of > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime as well as > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats. May I suggest > to include both links with the registration of ISO 8601." > Rebecca agreed that these links should be included. Since the original decision to approve ISO8601 was made fifteen months ago, and finalization of the wording has proved to be more difficult than expected, I think we should discuss the proposal in Shanghai in the context of the broader issues which have arisen with regard to date, then we should re-vote to approve "ISO8601".