- From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:53:15 +0300
- To: Fadi Maali <fadi.maali@deri.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, GLD Public Comments <public-gld-comments@w3.org>
Fadi, all, Thank you for the pointer. The current wording is fine with me. Best, Stasinos On Thu May 30 14:27:37 2013 Fadi Maali said: > Hi, > > Thanks for the feedback on DCAT! > I want to let you know that I have changed the text in DCAT Spec as suggested by Phil > see for example: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/dcat/index.html#Property:dataset_release_date > > Best regards, > Fadi > On 5 Apr 2013, at 08:33, Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr> wrote: > > > 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
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 06:48:11 UTC