Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I can see the benefits in approach 1 and 3.
I don't like approach 2 because it limits the collections in providing data.
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 9 Jun 2011 at 8:37
I will comment from a user's perspective (and I may still be dead wrong a that).
Users will expect an exact verbatim in a verbatimEventDate field. If that is
not always the case (as in Approach 1), confusion may arise as to the meaning
of verbatim.
I am uncertain of the importance of the disadvantage you mention in Approach 3,
however, and it may be major.
Sorry for the rather naive intervention.
Luc
Original comment by luc.brou...@umontreal.ca
on 9 Jun 2011 at 9:17
I'd lean towards approach 3.
I concur with Luc that a very large portion of the user community will expect
verbatim to mean verbatim with no added interpretation. I also concur with
Peter that approach 2 limits data provider's ability to provide what data they
do have.
Software can look at text which might be an ISO 8601 date and decide if it such
or not. Aggregators are thus able to consume eventDate with non ISO 8601
dates, determine that this is the case, and act accordingly. Making figuring
out if an eventDate is formatted as expected a concern of the aggregators/data
consumers seems reasonable to me.
Original comment by mole@morris.net
on 9 Jun 2011 at 9:25
I also concur with Paul and Luc that verbatim should be just that otherwise it
leads to confusion. Thus, approach 3 is really the best we can do and I agree
with Paul that the aggregators should be able to deal with this.
James
Original comment by James.Ma...@gmail.com
on 10 Jun 2011 at 3:28
This discussion gave me an idea, see issue 30. If you agree, we can solve this
one.
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 10 Jun 2011 at 4:33
The guidelines now recommend approach 3, but ISO 8601 is strongly recommended
for eventDate:
http://code.google.com/p/applecore/wiki/CollectionDate#Formatted_date
This issue is considered closed, leave a comment if you want to reopen it.
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 13 Jun 2011 at 8:08
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
peter.de...@gmail.com
on 9 Jun 2011 at 8:34