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

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

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:27:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL58czpD65P-1ii_wdjbQ5AC+WMuugoB8jcSBuYQQ-9Joinrng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Hi Ivan,

2011/11/10 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

> Hi Felix,
>
> So what was against the slightly more permissive solution of Gregg? Namely:
>
> - if the string can be parsed as xsd:date, xsd:dateTime, or xsd:time, then
> accept the string as such with those datatypes
> - otherwise it is a plain literal
>

I think this is is. In the XMP case, I tried to cover other types too -
like gYearMonth or gYear - , but for RDFa this might be overkill.

Felix


>
> This looks like a working compromise to me...
>
> Ivan
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 17:12 , Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
> > Sorry, some input from a lurker ...
> >
> > we had a similar issue in the media annotations working group: what
> actual time related data type to choose if you are not sure about the
> actual values? We came up with the same solution: analyze the lexical space
> and fall back to no data type (or string). See the discussion at
> >
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Sep/0069.html
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Sep/0070.html
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Sep/0072.html
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Sep/0082.html
> >
> > FYI, scenario here is to convert XMP multimedia metadata to instance
> data of the ontology for meda resources, following these mappings from XMP
> to the ontology
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/CR-mediaont-10-20110707/#xmp-table
> >
> > Felix
> >
> > 2011/11/10 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2011, at 15:54 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> >
> > > What if it matches none of them?
> >
> > I would propose: no datatype then
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 11/10/2011 8:52 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> > >> 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Shane McCarron
> > > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> > > +1 763 786 8160 x120
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ----
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ----
> 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 17:29:22 GMT

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