W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: Access to date and time information

From: Tom Adams <tom@tucanatech.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:26:20 -0400
Message-Id: <455095FE-00E2-11D9-ABF1-000A95C9112A@tucanatech.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, DAWG list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

Hi Bjoern,

Thanks for sending comments to the DAWG.

>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-dawg-uc-20040602/#u2.4 seems to
> motivate a requirement that is not listed in the draft. At some point
> in the process, the software needs to know the current date and time
> for example to avoid to schedule the recording of outdated items, or
> it needs to know how to group dates to weeks in order to present the
> index page for each week's recorded items.

Some questions for you so we get a better idea of your thinking:

o Do you feel that this is something that should be part of a standard 
access protocol?

o How does it help you as a developer to have it as part of an RDF 
access protocol, rather than part of some other network protocol (e.g. 
NTP)?

o How would you see such a function being embedded in the protocol? For 
example, if a HTTP based protocol were to be adopted, would it be 
embedded in the headers?

o Or, is this part of the query language, such as some kind of "now" 
function?

o Is it enough to provide something like "give me all documents that 
are older than 2 months, given the current date is XXXX-XX-XX"? Which 
implies feeding the date in. Or is this too much work, and you'd like a 
function as described above to do it auto-magically?

Any other additional information you wish to provide would also be 
welcomed.

> Another use case here would be a software program to remind working
> groups of the "Heartbeat" Requirement using TR Automation [2]; a query
> language could enable a query for all the technical reports not in an
> end state that are older than 2 1/2 month, or all groups that published
> a technical report that is not in an end state, that have not published
> an update of one of those drafts for 2 1/2 months.

Please see my comment above.

> Hmm, this also motivates Requirement 3.7, "Limited Datatype Support";
> since there is so far only one use case that motiviates datatype
> support, it might be good to add this motivation to the Monitoring News
> Events use case.

Good point, only UC 2.7 discusses this currently. If you'd like to 
propose another use case for us on this, of course you're most welcome 
to :)

Cheers,
Tom
-- 
Tom Adams                  | Tucana Technologies, Inc.
Support Engineer           |   Office: +1 703 871 5312
tom@tucanatech.com         |     Cell: +1 571 594 0847
http://www.tucanatech.com  |      Fax: +1 877 290 6687
------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 15:26:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT