Small correction to Foundation section 6.2. on the exceptions to ISO8601
Done
Raise
Analysis
Raise
Analysis
Description
In https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/foundation_types.html#_primitive_time_types
"the YYYY-WW-DD method of expressing dates (since this is imprecise and difficult to compute with due to variable week starting dates, and not required in health);"
The representation for a "week date", how it's called in ISO8601 is this:
---
5.2.4 Week date
5.2.4.1 Complete representations
A complete representation of a week date shall be as follows.
a) Basic format: [year][“W”][week][dayk]
EXAMPLE 1 1985W155
b) Extended format: [year][“-”][“W”][week][“-”][dayk]
EXAMPLE 2 1985-W15-5
---
So technically it's representation is not "YYYY-WW-DD" but [year][“-”][“W”][week][“-”][dayk], or in a similar notation "YYYY-'W'WW-DD", the issue is the week symbol 'W' should be part of the representation ot it's not possible to distinguish a date with months from a date with weeks.
It is a small fix.
Lowest
In https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/foundation_types.html#_primitive_time_types "the YYYY-WW-DD method of expressing dates (since this is imprecise and difficult to compute with due to variable week starting dates, and not required in health);" The representation for a "week date", how it's called in ISO8601 is this: --- 5.2.4 Week date 5.2.4.1 Complete representations A complete representation of a week date shall be as follows. a) Basic format: [year][“W”][week][dayk] EXAMPLE 1 1985W155 b) Extended format: [year][“-”][“W”][week][“-”][dayk] EXAMPLE 2 1985-W15-5 --- So technically it's representation is not "YYYY-WW-DD" but [year][“-”][“W”][week][“-”][dayk], or in a similar notation "YYYY-'W'WW-DD", the issue is the week symbol 'W' should be part of the representation ot it's not possible to distinguish a date with months from a date with weeks. It is a small fix.