W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > October 2004

Re: revert recent timezone changes? put them in a new schema?

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:15:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4177702D.8000600@gnowsis.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Masahide Kanzaki <post@kanzaki.com>, www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
Hi Dan,

If you are at changing or "bettering" the scheme, I would recommend you 
stop creating the scheme automatically from the RFC (as the rfc won't 
change pretty soon ;-) and start adding the missing facts.

i.e. the scheme misses the types

which is really really bad, as they are used all over the place.
or did I miss something here?

on the "old" thing, perhaps you should note the well known datatype 

on the "new" version i suggested this sugar on top:
        <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
    <rdfs:comment>dateTime property of Dates. Sugar.</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>

otherwise, the stuff is useful and used in


Es begab sich aber zu der Zeit 19.10.2004 15:25,  da Dan Connolly schrieb:

>On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 11:24, Masahide Kanzaki wrote:
>>At 10:35 AM -0500 04.10.14, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>>I wonder if I should roll back the timezone changes
>>>and start a new schema with the new timezone design.
>>>I'm not inclined to maintain 2 schemas. I'm willing to
>>>move new development to schema with a URI different
>>>from http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical but I'm not
>>>offering to do maintenance on that one as well as
>>>new development.
>>Yes, yes. It's very welcome to roll back the changes in the schema of
>>current URI, as well as to discuss and develop modified schema with a new
>>namespace URI.
>Hmm... it seems that I never actually rolled them forward
>in the 1st place.
>I proposed the changes 14 Apr 2004 
>but the schema is at
>revision 1.14 date: 2004/04/07 18:45:16
>>>The tests and conversion tools will migrate to the
>>>new schema, I think; I don't think I can afford to
>>>keep 2 sets of them around.
>>That's fine. Keep existing data as is, and move forward.
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 08:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:12 UTC