Should do:
s/2002-03-01/2002-01-03/
s/2002-04-01/2002-01-04/
(I don't think the example should use times in all the dates because it is intended to illustrate the possible problems with day granularity.)
Might also fix author links to be ORCID links.
On 10/15/15 5:42 AM, Àlex Magaz Graça wrote:
Hello,
I'm not sure, but looks like the date format used in the example of the
OAI-PMH Implementation Guidelines [1] is YYYY-DD-MM instead of
YYYY-MM-DD. Otherwise, it looks a bit confusing. In addition, I think
having the time part in all the dates would also make it more easy to
understand.
Should do: s/2002-03-01/2002-01-03/ s/2002-04-01/2002-01-04/
(I don't think the example should use times in all the dates because it is intended to illustrate the possible problems with day granularity.)
Might also fix author links to be ORCID links.
On 10/15/15 5:42 AM, Àlex Magaz Graça wrote: