Don't worry Brad, you are not the only one who finds that ISO doc fascinating.
This is great. Unfortunately it doesn't look like it supports decades eg [188] for the 1880s. I guess you could use a date range [1880/1890] or duration [1880/P10Y]. But I think some discussion on the best way to indicate date uncertainty would be worth while. -John On 2013-02-27, at 3:18 PM, Brad Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Mikel -- that all makes sense to me too. And agree with Jeff that we > should try using it til it breaks. > > One question though about the format of the date_start and date_end values: > > Since ISO 8601 allows so many different ways to indicate a time (for > instance, time offset from UTC, week numbering, etc), would we need to > determine one strict interpretation of the format and require it to be > used? In other words, 'if you want to upload your data, you can't have > week numbers in your timestamps, even though ISO8601 allows it', etc. > It seems that being strict with this, at least in these early stages, > this would keep things simple. Then perhaps later, support for parsing > the expanded syntax permitted by ISO8601 could be enabled, to allow > uploading of data in any ISO8601-compliant format. > > Specifically, the ISO standard document (which I'm not ashamed to say > I find pretty interesting) goes into much greater detail. Section > 4.1.2.3 and 4.3.3 deals with the uncertainty issue (pages 13 and 19), > relevant because of earlier conversations here on the mailing list > about displaying uncertainty of times and time ranges: > http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf > > - Brad > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Send Historic mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Historic digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Dating features (was: Introduction & questions) (Mikel Maron) >> 2. Re: Dating features (was: Introduction & questions) (Rob Warren) >> 3. Re: Dating features (was: Introduction & questions) (Jeff Meyer) >> 4. Re: Dating features (was: Introduction & questions) (Mikel Maron) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:52:51 -0800 (PST) >> From: Mikel Maron <[email protected]> >> To: Rob Warren <[email protected]>, >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Historic] Dating features (was: Introduction & >> questions) >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> how about >> >> for a date range: >> base-uri/date_start/date_end/zoom/x/y.img >> >> for a moment: >> base-uri/date/zoom/x/y.img >> >> where date values are ISO 8601 strings? >> ? >> * Mikel Maron *?+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Rob Warren <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:41 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Historic] Dating features (was: Introduction & questions) >>> >>> >>> No forking yet, we need to figure out time-stamping semi-officially. Rob >>> >>> On 27-Feb-13, at 10:18 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: >>> >>>> I strongly prefer encoded into the URL, to stay consistent with how tiles >>>> are currently requested, and make it simple to adapt client viewers. >>>> >>>> Looks like "tile_translate" in mod_tile.c would be the place to start? >>>> Have you forked mod_tile on github? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Historic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20130227/886acf5b/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:39:46 -0400 >> From: Rob Warren <[email protected]> >> To: Mikel Maron <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Historic] Dating features (was: Introduction & >> questions) >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> >> Mikel, >> >> On 27-Feb-13, at 1:52 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: >> >>> for a date range: >>> base-uri/date_start/date_end/zoom/x/y.img >> >> Makes sense. >> >>> for a moment: >>> base-uri/date/zoom/x/y.img >> >> By 'moment', I take it you mean day? Or are you thinking of "Historic" >> values? >> >> As long as this works on a relation, I'd be happy with it. >> >> best, >> rhw >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:07:30 -0800 >> From: Jeff Meyer <[email protected]> >> To: Rob Warren <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Historic] Dating features (was: Introduction & >> questions) >> Message-ID: >> <caa1ffey971u+8o_mp5wcv4yfje4ahgstckeijpnp5swvcom...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> So, let's test two cases: >> >> * Time Pixels: >> >> base-uri/YYYY/zoom/x/y.img >> >> Should this return start, middle, or end of YYYY, or should we enforce >> YYYY-MM-DD at a minimum? >> >> * Web Mercator of Time: >> >> If the year is -2000 BCE, how should we express that? >> >> I'm fine with any answer, but we should pick one and use it until it >> breaks. Sound ok? I'm not smart enough to suggest the answer... >> >> - Jeff >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Rob Warren >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Mikel, >>> >>> >>> On 27-Feb-13, at 1:52 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: >>> >>> for a date range: >>>> base-uri/date_start/date_end/**zoom/x/y.img >>>> >>> >>> Makes sense. >>> >>> for a moment: >>>> base-uri/date/zoom/x/y.img >>>> >>> >>> By 'moment', I take it you mean day? Or are you thinking of "Historic" >>> values? >>> >>> As long as this works on a relation, I'd be happy with it. >>> >>> best, >>> rhw >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Historic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/historic<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Meyer >> Global World History Atlas >> www.gwhat.org >> [email protected] >> 206-676-2347 >> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> osm: Historical >> OSM<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM> >> / my OSM user page <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer> >> t: @GWHAThistory <https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory> >> f: GWHAThistory <https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20130227/0b632e38/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:13:08 -0800 (PST) >> From: Mikel Maron <[email protected]> >> To: Jeff Meyer <[email protected]>, Rob Warren >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Historic] Dating features (was: Introduction & >> questions) >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >>> base-uri/YYYY/zoom/x/y.img >>> ? >>> Should this return start, middle, or end of YYYY, or should we enforce >>> YYYY-MM-DD at a minimum? >> ? >> Usual way I've seen this dealt with is to assume "start" of the year (or >> month or day, or whatever fidelity of the given input date). >> >>> ?If the year is -2000 BCE, how should we express that? >> >> -2000? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Years >> >> >> It might actually need to be -1999, not so smooth. >> >>> ?I'm fine with any answer, but we should pick one and use it until it >>> breaks. Sound ok? I'm not smart enough to suggest the answer... >> >> Yea, my suggestion too. This might not be perfect, but we can adjust once we >> have the basic flow going. >> As you can see, I'm smart enough to use wikipedia only ;) >>> By 'moment', I take it you mean day? Or are you thinking of "Historic" >>> values? >> >> ? >> Sorry, I was simply meant a single datetime value. >> >>> ?As long as this works on a relation, I'd be happy with it. >> >> That would all depend on how the relation is processed by osm2pgsql. >> >> -Mikel >> >> * Mikel Maron *?+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron >> >> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Jeff Meyer <[email protected]> >>> To: Rob Warren <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Mikel Maron <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:07 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Historic] Dating features (was: Introduction & questions) >>> >>> >>> So, let's test two cases: >>> >>> >>> * Time Pixels: >>> >>> >>> base-uri/YYYY/zoom/x/y.img >>> >>> >>> Should this return start, middle, or end of YYYY, or should we enforce >>> YYYY-MM-DD at a minimum? >>> >>> >>> * Web Mercator of Time: >>> >>> >>> If the year is -2000 BCE, how should we express that? >>> >>> >>> I'm fine with any answer, but we should pick one and use it until it >>> breaks. Sound ok? I'm not smart enough to suggest the answer... >>> >>> >>> - Jeff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Rob Warren <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Mikel, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 27-Feb-13, at 1:52 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> for a date range: >>>>> base-uri/date_start/date_end/zoom/x/y.img >>>>> >>>> >> Makes sense. >>>> >>>> >>>> for a moment: >>>>> base-uri/date/zoom/x/y.img >>>>> >>>> By 'moment', I take it you mean day? Or are you thinking of "Historic" >>>> values? >>>> >>>> As long as this works on a relation, I'd be happy with it. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> rhw >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Historic mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Meyer >>> Global World History Atlas >>> www.gwhat.org >>> [email protected] >>> 206-676-2347 >>> ?osm:?Historical OSM?/?my OSM user page >>> ?t:?@GWHAThistory >>> ?f:?GWHAThistory >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20130227/271d8a11/attachment.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Historic mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >> >> >> End of Historic Digest, Vol 7, Issue 6 >> ************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > Historic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic _______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
