W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: handling rdf:value

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:00:57 +0200
Message-ID: <006801c2a033$09954930$7480720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 09 December, 2002 19:28
Subject: Re: handling rdf:value


> 
> At 10:36 AM 12/9/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
> >Well, yes, but rdf:value *is* contextual, but at least this keeps it in 
> >bounds. I'd prefer to abandon it, but that's apparently not an option.
> 
> Er, yes.  In the past few days, I've come across a few instances of its use 
> in RDF schedule data.  Some of which, I think, doesn't conform with your 
> proposed "abbreviated form" approach;  e.g.
> 
> [[
> <VEVENT>
> <!--- snipped -->
> <DTSTART>
> 
> <DATE-TIME>
> <TZID rdf:resource="#US-Eastern"/>
> <rdf:value>20010226T090000</rdf:value>
> <util:hour>09</util:hour>
> <util:minute>00</util:minute>
> </DATE-TIME>
> </DTSTART>
> 
> <DTEND>
> <DATE-TIME>
> <TZID rdf:resource="#US-Eastern"/>
> <rdf:value>20010227T173000</rdf:value>
> <util:hour>17</util:hour>
> <util:minute>30</util:minute>
> </DATE-TIME>
> </DTEND>
> </VEVENT>
> ]]
> -- http://www.ilrt.bristol.ac.uk/discovery/2001/06/content/rdf_meeting.rdf
> 
> This is just an example picked at random.  I've noticed this pattern a 
> couple of times in iCalendar/RDF data.
> 
> #g

Hmmm... actually, I don't see how this doesn't fit with Pat's proposed
semantics for rdf:value.

The util:hour and util:minute values are present in the rdf:value
value, just made more explicit. So "dumbing down" the date-time
value to just the rdf:value value is not losing the core information,
per se, just the more explicit presentation/partitioning and
time zone context. Loss of the latter could, of course, result
in ambiguity, but it still seems to be compatible with Pat's
suggested interpretation of rdf:value.

Or have I missed your point?

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 05:03:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:50 EDT