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>

> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 16:27:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC