I agree that it looks more like certainty than precision, hence my
question: should I be using @cert here? I guess my original use of
@precision must have been attribute abuse, but the thinking went
something like "the content person is unwilling to commit to anything
more than a vague date range, with caveats, so precision must be low".
James Cummings wrote:
> Martin Holmes wrote:
>> So, where I used to use something like this:
>> <date notBefore="1598" notAfter="1615" precision="low"></date>
>> meaning "we're just taking a guess really, but our best guess would be
>> that it's between 1598 and 1615", how would I express that with the
>> current attributes?
> Isn't that certainty rather than precision? I mean are you saying it is
> notBefore 1598 and notAfter 1615, but you're not actually certain about
> ascribing it to that period? Or are you saying that the precision with
> which you are saying that is not really on the granularity of a year
> (rather than month/day/hour/minute/second)?
>> You're of course welcome to say that such a formulation is so vague as
>> to be ridiculous and not worth encoding, but it's the sort of thing I
>> often get from content experts, and I think it's better than nothing;
>> and it's certainly different from
>> <date notBefore="1598" notAfter="1615"></date>
>> i.e. without the @precision attribute. Would @cert do the job here? I
>> guess this is, really, more of a matter of certainty than it is of
>> precision, strictly speaking.
> I think the point is if I say:
> <date notBefore="1598" notAfter="1615">foo</date>
> then my precision is based in a granularity of years, if I say:
> <date notBefore="1598-04" notAfter="1615-08">foo</date>
> then obviously I have a precision of a granularity of at least months. (and
> so on).
> I think in your case it really is certainty about ascribing it to that date
> range at all that you are expressing, not precision with which the date
> range is expressed. This doesn't mean there isn't a place for recording
> precision, but I think the argument is claiming that W3C date formats have
> a basic level of precision measurement built into their format. (However,
> I would be open to an argument that is is in some cases a false precision
> and that people might like to record precision explicitly. Or more
> accurately perhaps, how the precision of that one element differs from the
> standard consistently imposed across the whole document.)
> My two pence,
>> Lou's Laptop wrote:
>>> I think the point is that the W3C or ISO datatypes come with a defined
>>> precision which is explicit eg in the number of digits you supply, and
>>> that there is no need therefore to add an extra attribute.
>>> Note that (as James, I think, pointed out first) "precision" is not the
>>> same as "reliability".
>>> Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>> Garces, Juan wrote:
>>>>> Please forgive should I not see the obvious, but how do
>>>>> @notBefore/@notAfter and @from/@to express precision or lack thereof?
>>>> Having looked at the references and the discussion, I'm also puzzled by
>>>> this. It seems to me that the job done by @precision is no longer done
>>>> by any other attribute or combination of attributes. @cert perhaps comes
>>>> cert (certainty) signifies the degree of certainty associated with the
>>>> intervention or interpretation.
>>>> but I'm not sure "intervention or interpretation" extends to assigning a
>>>> date, does it?
> Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
> James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
([log in to unmask])
[log in to unmask]