W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Proposal to resolve two XSD datatype issues

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 14:02:08 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5C8758C1-3C5B-4835-9871-E71AB2F6DE7A@cyganiak.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Peter,

On 10 May 2012, at 09:53, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I find it very strange to endorse xsd:duration but notxsd:yearMonthDuration <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#yearMonthDuration> or xsd:dayTimeDuration <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dayTimeDuration>

Well, let me refresh your memory. In the call before yesterday's call the WG resolved:

[[
Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1
]]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-02#resolution_2

You were present and -0'd the proposal.

I implemented it the same day:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#xsd-datatypes

> Also, there are no supported XSD datatypes in RDF!  You probably meant "suitable" or "in the XSD datatype map".

RDF Concepts calls this the “RDF-compatible XSD types”, see link above.

> The treatment of dates and time has changed significantly between XSD 1.0 and XSD 1.1.   The RDF WG may want to determine whether the revised datatypes are suitable for use in RDF before closing ISSUE-87.

I looked at them all and they look fine. I suggest closing the issue. We can re-open if new information becomes available.

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 13:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT