{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1/events","html_url":"https://github.com/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1","id":297984800,"number":1,"title":"Should we create an Open Datetime Format?","user":{"login":"JohnLukeBentley","id":18357541,"avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/18357541?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley","html_url":"https://github.com/JohnLukeBentley","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JohnLukeBentley/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":839796019,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/labels/The%20root%20issue","name":"The root issue","color":"7057ff","default":false}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":7,"created_at":"2018-02-17T06:50:23Z","updated_at":"2018-02-17T15:22:06Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"## The Proposal\r\n\r\n### Intro\r\n\r\nI (@JohnLukeBentley) propose that we create an \"Open Datetime Format: containing an ISO 8601 Profile plus extensions and contradictions\". \"Open Datetime Format\" or \"ODF\", for short.\r\n\r\nAt least for the present discussion I'm using \"datetime\" as a generic term. That is, so that \"2018-02-01\", \"20:30\", and \"2018-02-01 20:30\" are all examples of a \"datetime\". \r\n\r\n### About ISO 8601:201x\r\n\r\nISO 8601:201x is the latest datetime format from the International Standards Organisation (ISO). It comes in two parts:\r\n\r\n1. [ISO/DIS 8601:201x-1](https://www.iso.org/standard/70907.html)\r\n2. [ISO/DIS 8601:201x-2](https://www.iso.org/standard/70908.html)\r\n\r\nISO 8601:201x is an update of ISO 8601:2004.\r\n\r\nISO 8601:201x is currently in draft and it seems to be nearing publication.  See the \"life cycle\" timeline tracker at the bottom of the page from either of those above links. At http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html it is claimed that ISO 8601:201x is \"to be published in 2018\".\r\n\r\nThe version I have is ISO 8601:2016(e) dated 2016-10-26, as was recently available from http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/.\r\n\r\n### Containing an ISO 8601 profile \r\n\r\nI propose the content of the Open Datetime Format will:\r\n\r\n1. Contain an ISO 8601 profile that will, as far as possible, be based on and track the ISO 8601:201x Profile - Annex C The Extended Date/Time Format (from now on \"EDTF:ISO\"). The ISO 8601 profile within Open Datetime Format will: \r\n\r\n   + \"CLARIFY\" EDTF:ISO (or the larger ISO 8601:201x) where it is ambiguous or confusing (e.g. we might CLARIFY whether minute level precision is permitted); \r\n   + \"DELETE\" features from EDTF:ISO (or the larger ISO 8601:201x) where we find good reason to (e.g. we might DELETE the use of two digits for centuries);\r\n   \r\n   ... plus ...\r\n\r\n2. \"EXTEND\" EDTF:ISO (or the larger ISO 8601:201x) where necessary, introducing datetime kinds where we think EDTF:ISO (and the larger ISO 8601:201x) should have included them (e.g. ISO 8601-201x doesn't mention seasons in date ranges. We might, therefore, include seasons in date ranges); and\r\n3. \"CONTRADICT\" EDTF:ISO (and the larger ISO 8601:201x) where necessary (e.g. ISO 8601-201x uses \"%\" for uncertain and approximate dates. We might therefore continue with the traditional \"?~\").\r\n\r\nThat is, Open Datetime Format is *not* an ISO 8601 profile, it *contains* an ISO 8601 profile (of our own devising).\r\n\r\n\"CLARIFY\", \"DELETE\", \"EXTEND\", \"CONTRADICT\", and their cognates (\"CLARIFICATION\", \"DELETED\", etc.) have their ordinary English meaning. But I have in mind to formally emphasize their use much like \"MUST\", \"MUST NOT\", etc. are in [RFC 2119](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt).\r\n\r\nThe Extended Date/Time Format in ISO 8601:201x Annex C (EDTF:ISO) is an evolution from The Extended Date/Time Format found at the Library of Congress (from now on \"EDTF:LOC\"): http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/ and http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html. \r\n\r\nEDTF:LOC was a standard built to serve the bibliographic community. However EDTF:LOC, EDTF:ISO, and the proposed Open Datetime Format, have (or will have) uses also in other communities/areas of application. \r\n\r\nSo the Open Datetime Format is intended to continue the work done started in EDTF:LOC folk and evolved in EDTF:ISO. In both cases very good work has been done to shape those standards.\r\n\r\n### Open/Free (at liberty)\r\n\r\nI have in mind that The Open Datetime Format will be open in that:\r\n\r\n* Everyone will be able to access the development and release versions without cost.\r\n* Everyone will be able to make suggestions for its improvement.\r\n* Everyone will be allowed to distribute the standard (with attribution).\r\n* Everyone will be allowed to copy the standard, make independent modifications to it, and distribute that modified version (with attribution). \r\n* Everyone will be allowed to use the standard for open or closed (proprietary) software.\r\n\r\nBut:\r\n* If a person or organisation distributes the standard, or a modified version (of the standard), they can't deny others the right to distribute the standard, or the modified version (of the standard). \r\n\r\nI'm not properly across the principles of ...\r\n\r\n* \"Free\" (at liberty) software in [What is free software?](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), from the [Free Software Foundation](https://www.fsf.org/);\r\n* \"Open Source\" in [Open Source Initiative > The Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd); and \r\n* \"Creative Commons\" in [Creative Commons > Share your work](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/).\r\n\r\n... and their respective licenses. So I'm currently unable to suggest a preference.\r\n\r\nI know, at least, Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation Founder) discourages the conflation of \"open\" and \"free\" (at liberty):\r\n\r\n> Another group uses the term “open source” to mean something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to freedom. [What is free software?](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).\r\n\r\nUntil I get sharper handle on the distinction I'll remain guilty of using \"open\" to mean the same thing as \"free\" (at liberty).\r\n\r\nAgreeing on the principles of openness or freedom will be very much up for debate and, in turn, the consequent license.\r\n\r\nHowever, for above list of open ends it is intended that Github be the platform for developing the standard.\r\n\r\n### Clear and unambiguous\r\n\r\nOpen Datetime Format should be both unambiguous and clear to follow. That's a difficult goal. Both EDTF:LOC and EDTF:ISO reasonably approach that goal. But I have ambitions to be clearer than either. \r\n\r\nThose ambitions are launched off the back of currently vague ideas like: \r\n\r\n* Chunk the formats into a set of distinct rules. Each rule accompanied by further optional parts: examples, further clarification/disambiguation of the rule, justification/reasoning for the rule, a source (e.g. a citation of EDTF:ISO or ISO 8601:201x at large). That is, in contrast to the flowing narrative approach, albeit divided in sections, by EDTF:LOC and EDTF:ISO. \r\n* Divide the document into two parts: the rules; and the other stuff (introduction, definition of terms, explanation about levels and ISO 8601 profiles, document status, explanation of the relationship to EDTF:LOC, EDTF:ISO, and ISO 8601:201x, etc.)\r\n* Understanding the Open Datetime Format in full should require reading only one document (one web page (as for EDTF:LOC); or one pdf).\r\n* Yes, let's use levels.\r\n* If we publish it as (X)HTML we could use CSS and Javascript to filter and sort the document content in several useful ways. E.g. display only level 0; display only the rules and examples; view by level; view by feature; view the ISO 8601 profile then the EXTENSIONS and CONTRADICTIONS Versus mashing those together to read as a sequence of features; remove \"The other stuff\", etc. All that would be supported by url referencing.\r\n* Limit the use of Backus–Naur Form (BNF) but to the extent it is used, use it up front; alternatively not use BNF at all."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/comments/366448149","html_url":"https://github.com/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1#issuecomment-366448149","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/JohnLukeBentley/open-datetime-standard-bootstrap/issues/1","id":366448149,"user":{"login":"retorquere","id":132108,"avatar_url":"https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/132108?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere","html_url":"https://github.com/retorquere","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/retorquere/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-02-17T15:22:06Z","updated_at":"2018-02-17T15:22:06Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"> Great! Then that seems to be enough of an assent from you for us to move forward on ODF, \n\nYes, absolutely. \n\n> Could you clarify that? I mean what would you do?:\n\nPragmatically, I'd do whatever @plk or @njbart tell me to do. I know very little about csl and biblatex. \n\n> However, I wouldn't want to discourage anybody who, in thinking about ODF, wants to grab that stick from the other end. E.g. By defending a Stallman-like stance that starts with the political/moral principles of freedom.\n\nPeople who actually care deeply about these matters will always be divided on this. The open source crowd seem largely to be ok with free though. \n\n> The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems [op. cited.]\n\nThis is correct, Stallman is aware of this, but then still seems to assume people will look beyond superficialities to find out what is actually meant. This is not my experience in these matters. So from this perspective of the debate, the term \"free\" is going to be most meaningful to people already persuaded one way or the other (because these are the people who took the effort to find out about the difference). It feels to me like it unintentionally preaching to the choir in this way. My views are in line with Stallman btw. Open source has very little value to me if it isn't also free software. "}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"retorquere"}}