W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > December 2002

RE: RDF semantics, access control description and timeranges

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:59:21 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
Cc: "'www-rdf-calendar'" <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>

At 10:17 AM 12/15/02 -0500, Geoff Chappell wrote:
>Don't these problems only arise when you assume defaults based upon the
>absence of information? You really don't have the right to assume that a
>missing util:minute value means that the value is 0, do you?

Yes, I agree... (unless, perhaps, there is other information present from 
which you could infer such a value.)

The difficulty then is that one has to decide up-front (i.e. when defining 
a vocabulary) how much precision is to be required if splitting out the 
different units as separate properties.  I think goes against many 
intuitive approaches to representing information.  E.g. you can't treat a 
VEVENT as a structure that can be extended/refined by adding yet more 
information:  each property you add should  in some sense increase the 
number of temporal situations thus described.  It did occur to me that this 
is an argument for sticking with the ISO-based string representation of times.


Graham Klyne
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 08:11:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:11 UTC