You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We had a few cases for which we couldn't really decide if they are intervals or values:
the mechanical oscillator method is well established since about 2 decades
Over the past three decades
We hesitated:
the mechanical oscillator method is well established since about <measuretype="interval"><numatMost="2">2</num> <measuretype="TIME">decades</measure></measure>
or
the mechanical oscillator method is well established since about <measuretype="value"><num>2</num> <measuretype="TIME">decades</measure></measure>
Over the past <measuretype="interval"><numatMost="3">three</num> <measuretype="TIME">decades</measure></measure>
or
Over the past <measuretype="interval"><numatMost="3">three</num> <measuretype="TIME">decades</measure></measure>
It seems to me that if we were to annotate those as intervals, we should bound them with the date corresponding to the beginning of the time periods. For examples 1998 for since about 2 decades, but it would be complicated to decide the starting point to compute the duration from... the publication of the article?
I think we should annotate them as atomic values, what do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We had a few cases for which we couldn't really decide if they are intervals or values:
We hesitated:
It seems to me that if we were to annotate those as intervals, we should bound them with the date corresponding to the beginning of the time periods. For examples 1998 for
since about 2 decades
, but it would be complicated to decide the starting point to compute the duration from... the publication of the article?I think we should annotate them as atomic values, what do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: