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

proposal for dateTime (ISSUE-138)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20081013.123745.21023898.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

There has been some discussion of whether OWL can use XSD's new datatype
dateTime with required timezone, because our notion of equality derives
from the timeline for time, not the XSD 7-value internal data structure
for xsd:dateTime.  However, our notion of equality *is* the notion of
equality used in XSD for dateTime values with a required timezone, and
thus retains compatibility with XSD.

I propose that we resolve ISSUE-138 by staying with owl:dateTime in the
next round of publication but to put in a note saying that this datatype
is to be considered xsd:dateTime with a required timezone and that we
will move to the new XSD name for this datatype as soon as it is
determined.



peter

From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: required timezone xsd dateTime datatype (ISSUE-138)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:14:55 -0400 (EDT)

> Discussion in the XML Schema WG on 29 September 2008 chronicled at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Sep/0025.html
> indicates that they will indeed have a datatype that is xsd:dateTime
> with a required timezone.  They will also have a facet for xsd:dateTime
> that indicates whether the timezone is required, forbidden, or optional.
> 
> The net result is that we can eventually use an xsd name for
> owl:dateTime.  However, I suggest that this does not need to be
> reflected in the current round of publication. 
> 
> peter
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 16:38:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 October 2008 16:38:30 GMT