[osis-core] Element Review: <date>

Steve DeRose osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:44:23 -0400


At 06:09 AM -0400 06/21/02, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>Suggested change:
>
>Add:
>
><xs:simpleType name="calendarType">
>	<xs:union memberTypes="calendarOSIS attributeExtension"/>
></xs:simpleType>
>
>Change simple type name to: calendarOSIS.
>
>Change the attribute in date to:
>
><xs:attribute name="calendar" type="calendarType" use="optional" 
>default="ISO'/>
>
>Has the advantage that users now can use the attribute name 
>"calendar" which is probably more intuiative than "calendarType" and 
>corrects that lack of an extension mechanism.
>
>Changes in full would be:
>
><xs:simpleType name="calendarOSIS">
>	<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>		<xs:enumeration value="Chinese"/>
>		<xs:enumeration value="Gregorian"/>
>		<xs:enumeration value="Islamic"/>
>		<xs:enumeration value="ISO"/>
>		<xs:enumeration value="Jewish"/>
>		<xs:enumeration value="Julian"/>
>	</xs:restriction>
></xs:simpleType>
>
><xs:simpleType name="calendarType">
>	<xs:union memberTypes="calendarOSIS attributeExtension"/>
></xs:simpleType>
>
>Change attribute in date to:
>
><xs:attribute name="calendar" type="calendarType" use="optional" 
>default="ISO'/>
>
>Comments?

I'm confused about the meaning of these values -- seems like several 
refer to calendar systems, but ISO refers to the combination of 
Gregorian and a format in which to express it (namely yyyy-mm-dd) -- 
are there standard formats for writing the other systems, such that 
we can avoid the distinction and the value 'ISO') by making ISO the 
required format for Gregorian dates?

It seems that at a minimum, we must specify the normalized syntax we 
expect for dates from the other systems.

>
>>
>>Also, should we distinguish date-range?
>>
>>There is also the obnoxious problem of "dates" like "in the month 
>>of whatever" or "the ides of March" or "in the 5 year of Tiberius" 
>>that don't map for ISO forms or ranges very well. TEI never solved 
>>that, I think.
>>
>>The easiest 'solution' I can think of for that would be to provide 
>>a reserved type, calendar, or value that says 'this is not a 
>>specific date, but a more abstrct time expression'. YEch.
>>



-- 

Steve DeRose -- http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chair, Bible Technologies Group -- http://www.bibletechnologies.net
Email: sderose@speakeasy.net
Backup email: sderose@mac.com, sjd@stg.brown.edu