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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:14:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080820.131425.262028357.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: msmith@clarkparsia.com
Cc: alanruttenberg@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Subject: Re: editorial comments on http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/DateTime
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:00:49 -0400

> 
> On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 12:26 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> I propose dropping these two sentences altogether.  The obvious,
> unsatisfying justification is that the BNF for timezones from -14 to +14
> (see [1]) is easier to specify than the BNF for timezones from -12 to
> +14.  The -840 to +840 minute range matches -14 to +14 hour range.
> 
> -- 
> Mike Smith

The problem is that the range of timezone affects the semantics of
dateTime.  Of course we are overriding this part of the semantics.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:18:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:18:21 GMT