For example the following form seems to me reasonable:
ti'o nanca ce'o masti ce'o djedi (se'u) li 2016 pi'e 5 pi'e 22 detri lo nu mi ciska kei lo gugdejupu la gregoris
For operator precedence, I suggest using {ce'o} and {ve kanji}:
ti'o zo pi'i ce'o zo su'i ve kanji (se'u) li pa su'i re pi'i ci du li ze
though it is different from the example currently given in the corresponding BPFK section:
https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_MEX
ti'o zo pi'i ce'o zo su'i porsi li pa su'i re pi'i ci du li ze
("x" and "+" is an ordered sequence) 1 + 2 x 3 = 7 (created for this, mi'e RossOgilvie, 16/6/10)
Maybe I should consult BPFK about my suggestion, but I don't think BPFK should give restriction on the usage of {ti'o}. I rather prefer that BPFK only suggests some possible examples of usage, and that users can freely invent any usage for their own purpose.
mi'e la guskant