- From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:33:58 +0300
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: GLD Public Comments <public-gld-comments@w3.org>
Dear Phil, GLDers, kind reminder of some thoughts I had posted earlier, regarding ways to compromise between current (mal)practice and accurate ways to express "I don't know exactly when". http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Jan/0094.html best, s On Thu Apr 4 10:16:49 2013 Phil Archer said: > Having noted this afternoon's agenda item on ADMS I'm working on > that document right now which is causing me to look at DCAT more > carefully than I have of late - which is my excuse for just noticing > something I should have seen before. I ask that the WG treats this > as a last call comment. > > In the text related to the use of dcterms:issued [1] we say: > > "rdfs:Literal typed as xsd:date. The date is encoded as a literal in > "YYYY-MM-DD" form (ISO 8601 Date and Time Formats). If the specific > day or month are not known, then 01 should be specified." > > I remember raising this at our previous f2f last year as I find it > objectionable that we actively encourage sloppy practice and > inaccurate data. > > If I know that something was issued in March 2013 then I can write > > dcterms:issued "2013-03"^^xsd:gYearMonth > > That conveys exactly what I mean - that the thing was issued at some > point between 2013-03-01T00:00:00 and 2013-03-31T23:59:59. But I > don't know when. It is accurate, if not precise. > > But DCAT says we shouldn't do this. We should render it as > 2013-03-01 which means that the thing was issued sometime in the 24 > hour period known as 1st March. That may be wrong by as much as 30 > days and gives an entirely bogus impression of accuracy. > > I suspect that the reason for this is that catalogues habitually > don't understand xsd:gYearMonth. If that's the case then that's > application-specific and a profile may wish to make it clear that > dates must be xsd:date only, even if that means it will create > inaccuracies where none exist in the original data, but IMHO this > sloppiness should not be included in the DCAT spec. Therefore I > suggest that the text for this property says: > > "rdfs:Literal using the relevant ISO 8601 Date and Time compliant > string and typed using the appropriate XML Schema datatype > [[XMLSCHEMA-2]]" > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#Property:catalog_release_date > > > > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C eGovernment > http://www.w3.org/egov/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 07:29:58 UTC