W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: POI Core Strawman: ISSUE-26: How do we represent times?

From: Thomas Wrobel <darkflame@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:55:36 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=xn=rvwv5=Vgf910t9WsPzm2-mNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh L Klotz Jr <leigh.klotz@xerox.com>
Cc: public-poiwg@w3.org
Query; doesn't disallowing 0000 as a year present discontinuities when
adding and subtracting years?

Not sure this will crop up much in POIs, if at all, but I am curious
as to the apparent complications this adds to working out dates over
large scales into the past.

On 12 May 2011 18:24, Leigh L Klotz Jr <leigh.klotz@xerox.com> wrote:
> I'd recommend using the lexical format definitions here:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats
>
> It's profiled from ISO8601 and so there is no fee required to read the
> document.
> and it is a W3C Recommendation, not a NOTE as the 1997 note below, and are
> in wide use.
>
> See section D.2 "Truncated and Reduced" formats for the description of time.
>
> Leigh.
>
>
>
> On 05/12/2011 02:29 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime allows progressive detail down to
> the fraction of a second.
>
> It doesn't seem to however cover specifying a time but not a date,
> which I think is usefull when it comes to simple repetition. If we
> want to allow time specification without a date then we do need a
> co-existing alternative.
> --
> Also, I strongly feel we should rename this element.
> Time is highly generic and can mean many things ("creation time?
> opening time? time of the data being put online? etc"). The name
> should be clear.
> Assuming we have two elements to determine a time range (both optional),
> Id suggest having it "ExistanceStart" or just "Start" to clarifying we
> are specifying the range the POIs exists from or over.  A similar
> "End" field would be used to mark the end of the range.
> (a missing start or end would just mean the range of the POI in time
> goes to infinity in that direction....ie, has existed forever or will
> exist forever, or both. Both specified without a date could indicate a
> repeating range  etc)
>
>
> ~~~~~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
>
> On 12 May 2011 07:33, Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> wrote:
>> Matt Womer wrote
>>>It was said that time should be optional, I had tried to indicate that it
>>> is by saying "can have one or more",
>>>which was meant to imply "has zero or more". I've changed the text to say
>>> "MAY have one or more".
>> ...
>>>As for representing the time itself, I've pulled in info from XML Schema
>>> Datatypes, but that only gives us
>>>some primitives to play with, not how we're going to put them together.
>>
>> One option for the xsd:dateTime and xsd:date type is to allow either type
>> in
>> cases where you have date and optional time.
>> They're lexically distinct, so this works for XSD structures or for RNC
>> structures describing XML, and for JSON, etc.
>>
>> 2011-05-11T12:24:45-0000
>> and
>> 2011-05-11
>>
>> So the latter indicates a date without a time (precision).
>>
>> Similarly, if you want to allow dateTime or time (and default the date via
>> context) it's also lexically distinct.
>>
>> Leigh.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 20:56:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 May 2011 20:56:04 GMT