W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:05:41 +0200
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "public-rif-wg@w3.org" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D6001163056BA2E@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Actually, I. am not that cool either.

dateTime is an incredible source of error by nature in particular if you want to express either tim or a date only. This is true in xml and now equally pollutes rdf and owl.

I was trying to be nice but I believe that not doing this is not in favour of a larger adoption of RDF and OWL. Ignoring such requirements is technically not justifiable in particular when on the verge of getting duration in.

Of course not considering duration would be even wronger.

Date, time and duration are really critical to media description in many respects. dateTime is also useful in some cases.

Put like it, it sounds less cool but maybe you'll take it more seriously :--(

cheers, jp
________________________________________
From: Michael Schneider [schneid@fzi.de]
Sent: 03 May 2012 17:02
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org; public-rif-wg@w3.org; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org; public-rdf-wg
Subject: Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) -  ACTION-164:  RDF WG

Am 03.05.2012 16:20, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:
> As a humble user, I would welcome this addition of duration because we need it in the AV industry (I am form the European Broadcasting Union).
>
> Also, if not already solved, having date and time as separate datatype would be cool.

Sure, but, I'm afraid, the question here is not so much on coolness, but
more on whether a certain datatype qualifies /technically/ to be
included in the set of OWL 2 and RIF datatypes, and, of course, also
whether the formal W3C standardization process allows a not-fully-closed
W3C working group (after 2 1/2 years of dormancy) to add new features to
an already finished recommendation. And, for me at least, these
questions are not trivially to be answered. Btw, doing so may have the
not-so-nice side effect to make a large set of currently available OWL 2
tools incomplete w.r.t. OWL 2, at least for some time of transition...

Just a note from a notoriously un-cool guy,
Michael

> I currently have in my ontologies duration expressed as dateTime (or edit units to timecode) and dateTime is a pain :--)
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com]
> Sent: mercredi, 2. mai 2012 18:12
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org; public-rdf-wg
> Subject: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG
>
> The XSD 1.1 specs are have finally achieved REC status!
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
>
> There appears to have been some late work on xsd:duration, which may have made
> it suitable for use in RDF and OWL.  The RDF WG is poised to add xsd:duration
> to the recommended/permitted/approved (whatever) list of XSD datatypes for RDF.
>
> Could the OWL WG provide *advisory* input as to whether this is a bad idea?
> Ideally, if RDF adds xsd:duration, OWL should as well, so it would be good if
> the OWL WG could determine whether the current definition of xsd:duration will
> be "added" to OWL.
>
> If RIF and SPARQL WGs are active, they may also want to take a look at
> xsd:duration.
>
> peter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
>
>

--
..........................................................
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, IPE / WIM

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10–14
76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Tel.: +49 721 9654-726
Fax: +49 721 9654-727

michael.schneider@fzi.de
www.fzi.de

..........................................................
Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI) an der Universität Karlsruhe
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Ralf Reussner,
Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer, Prof. Dr.-Ing. J. Marius Zöllner
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
..........................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 16:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT