W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

editorial comments on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/DateTime

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:26:08 -0400
Message-Id: <FA047F3A-2A59-47EB-8D42-7A54A95D86B7@gmail.com>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

For
> This treatment of dateTime values appears to violate the equality  
> of dateTime values from the LC draft, as dateTime values without  
> timezone information that compare equal according to the LC draft  
> can be turned into dateTime values that do not compare equal. The  
> WG would appreciate guidance on how to do this processing in a  
> compliant manner.
>
>

Does the "This" refer to our proposed repair mechanism for adding  
time zones to dateTimes without timezones?
I thought being a bit more explicit by having an example would be  
helpful for them.
> There are other potential solutions to reasoning with such dateTime  
> values (such as treating them as true intervals). However, these  
> solutions also appear to violate equality of dateTime values.
>
>

Is the proposal for treating them as intervals coming from the XML  
Schema spec? If so, it's probably worth pointing out what where and  
giving an explicit example.

> We also do not find a justification for having the range of  
> timezone be -840 to +840. The range of timezones currently in use  
> ranges from UTC-12 to UTC+14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 
> List_of_time_zones).
>
>

Are we asking for a justification or are we saying we would prefer to  
use -12 to +14?

> This section of the document also confused the WG, as it did not  
> mention dateTime. Only a careful examination of the entire LC draft  
> shows that year and second probably refer to the year and second  
> that appear as parts of dateTime (and other datatypes). The WG  
> suggests that the relationship between year and second and the  
> actual datatypes be made more clear in this section of the LC draft.
>

Had trouble resolving "This". The previous paragraph is about  
xsd:decimal and I didn't understand the connection.

> Separately, the OWL WG has noticed...
>

Should this be included in this communication or be in a separate  
one? If it is separate and included in this communication consider  
having the subject line mention it.

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 16:27:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 August 2008 16:27:03 GMT