|
I find this calendar stuff interesting - but such an interest led toMMDDYY.
the real expert, Bruce Vining, from being invited to parties, so he says.
But we are rather stuck with what we have - for some reason lost in
recent history, IBM uses *JUL for a way to represent dates within a
given year - maybe because it is something like the real julian date,
as you've described it.
So I think there is little benefit to fighting city hall in these
things
- but it is maybe useful to know the difference of context, in order
not to be embarrassed when talking in other groups, such as
astrophysicists
- have any of us been to one of their meetings recentlyl?
I did look up a name I remember - Scaliger - J.J. Scaliger is the
person who originally proposed the use of the so-called Julian date -
well, let the following quote say it -
The number of days since noon on January 1, -4712, i.e., January 1,
4713 BC <http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/BC.html>
(Seidelmann 1992). It was proposed by J. J. Scaliger
<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Scaliger.html> Eric
Weisstein's World of Biography in 1583, so the name for this system
derived from Julius Scaliger
<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Scaliger.html>, Eric
Weisstein's World of Biography not Julius Caesar.
So this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Julian calendar -
something I didn't know, and I won't make that mistake again!
Apparently Scaliger went back using 3 calendar systems to find a date
where they coincided - more details at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/JulianDate.html
So I guess if we want to be exhaustively clear, we need to distinguish
between astronomical, Roman, and IBM Julian dates.
Isn't the English language the most fun of all?
Regards
Vern
On 11/17/2011 4:55 PM, John Yeung wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:40 PM, CRPence<CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 15-Nov-2011 22:13 , John Yeung wrote:This is my point exactly. There is no reason for that *format* to
IBM's "Julian dates" have as much to do with *actual* Julian datesMost references to a "Julian date" [for IBM i anyhow] likely
as Julian Lennon.
apply only to a presentation-format and\or input- format for
Gregorian date values.
be called Julian, because there is no relationship between that
format and any variation on the Julian date system. Even the
astronomical Julian date system (a) uses the Julian calendar, and
(b) is a number of days from a single fixed point in all of time,
not from the beginning of EACH year.
Did Julius Caesar express dates as a year and a number of days from
the beginning of that year? No. He used 12 months, and days within
the month, just like we do today. So where does "Julian format"
come from?
The terminology was even worse at my previous job. There, "Julian
date" specifically meant YYDDD, "extended Julian date" meant
YYYYDDD, "Gregorian date" meant YYYYMMDD, and "calendar date" meant
effect.
the database [AFaIK still] only supports the Gregorian calendarFirst of all, there would be no useful reason to support anything
[though, with the skipped\missing days accounted\included] for date
calculations.
other than the Gregorian calendar. It's what the entire world uses,
at least when interacting internationally. (There are religious,
cultural, and local calendar systems that may be used internally by
those religions, cultures, or localities.)
Second, I'm not completely sure what you mean by skipped/missing days.
Are you referring to the point at which England switched from the
Julian calendar to the Gregorian, and thus had to enact a one-time
correction? Unless you are a historian and your data actually uses
dates from that time (and keep in mind that different areas of the
world switched to Gregorian at different times; Russia was still
using the Julian calendar until 1918!), it really only makes sense
to do all calculations as if the Gregorian calendar had always been in
(And this is what the IBM-supplied functions do.)--
I will say this: I have seen a lot of home-grown date code that
calculates as if the Julian calendar were in effect! (Specifically,
any code that assumes *every* 4th year is a leap year is effectively
using the Julian calendar, and not the Gregorian calendar.)
John Y.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take
a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.