W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

XML Schema last call documents and ACTION-252

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:03:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090209.160356.251934225.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi:

I have checked the XML Schema Datatypes LC document at 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-2-20090130/

for conformance with what we want.

It appears to me that everything is OK.

1/ The datatype xsd:dateTimeStamp is what we want to use for timestamps.

2/ Minimal conformance for xsd:decimal has been fixed to be 

	All minimally conforming processors must support decimal values
	whose absolute value can be expressed as i / 10k, where i and k
	are nonnegative integers such that i < 10^16 and k ≤ 16 (i.e.,
	those expressible with sixteen total digits).

   This is actually more precise than, but compatible with, the
   temporary wording that was in Syntax.

3/ Minimal conformance for xsd:dateTime, etc., has been fixed to be 

	All minimally conforming processors must support nonnegative
	year values less than 10000 (i.e., those expressible with four
	digits) in all datatypes which use the seven-property model
	defined in The Seven-property Model (§D.2.1) and have a
	non-absent value for year (i.e. dateTime, dateTimeStamp,
	date, gYearMonth, and gYear). . 

	All minimally conforming processors must support second values
	to milliseconds (i.e. those expressible with three fraction
	digits) in all datatypes which use the seven-property model
	defined in The Seven-property Model (§D.2.1) and have a
	non-absent value for second (i.e. dateTime, dateTimeStamp,
	and time). . 

   This is compatible with the temporary wording that was in Syntax.


I propose that the OWL WG send a note to the XML Schema WG to the effect
that we approve of the resolution of all our issues.  I propose that
Syntax be updated appropriately, i.e., that much of the relevant wording
in Syntax be removed in favour of pointers to the XML Schema documents,
and that the change be tagged as conforming to the "At Risk" warnings in
our LC.

I further propose that we don't express our dismay at the extra "." in
the above.  :-)

I have marked ACTION-252 as "pending review".  

All this should probably be discussed at the teleconference this week,
but I don't expect any dissension.  :-)

peter
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 21:04:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 21:04:11 GMT