W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Looking at the time element (again) (ISSUE-97)

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:52:04 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8638D612-E06C-43F5-AC1A-BC6AE9E3468E@kellogg-assoc.com>
In my version of the proposals, I perform lexical analysis of @datetime against xsd:date, xsd:dateTime and xsd:time and choose the datatype based on the match. It's quite simple.

Gregg Kellogg

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:48 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Now that <time> seems to be back into the picture, I have looked at ISSUE-97 again[1].
> 
> The issue, as raised by Stéphane, proposes to understand the '@datetime' property of the <time> element. Essentially, if the source contains this:
> 
> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time>
> 
> we should, implicitly, consider this as being
> 
> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10" content="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time>
> 
> and then let the core RDFa processing go. That is of course easy.
> 
> However... do we want to add a datatype to this? One would think so, but then we get to a very slippery slope. Which datatype? Looking at 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date

> 
> we do have quite a lot of possibilities... There is of course xsd:dateTime (this is what Stéphane used in his original mail for the issue). This would mean the transformation of the <time> element into:
> 
> <time property="something" datetime="2009-05-10" content="2009-05-10T00:00:00-00:00" datatype="xsd:dateTime">May 10th 2009</time>
> 
> but there are a bunch of others, like gYear, gYearMonth, etc.
> 
> Personally, I would propose to use xsd:dateTime only. But that has to be decided by the group.
> 
> However, nothing with time is simple... If the author puts in the whole ISO format, then are of course fine. But I would expect that in the vast majority of cases the hour and minute and the others will all be missing. Is it all right to just add the 0 hour, as Stéphane did it? Again, I can live with that, but this is something to be decided and known for interoperability reasons...
> 
> Minor things, but should be cast in stone:-)
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97

> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 14:53:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT