- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:51:13 +0200
- To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Felix, On 04/06/2011 12:32 AM, Felix Sasaki wrote: > 2011/4/5 Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr > <mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>> > > Hi all, > > there seem to be a recurring problem with dates and the ma: ontology. I > encountered it, Martin encountered it, I know that Joakim also did... > > The fact is that most metadata formats we are dealing with allow dates > to be more or less precise, like > > * just a year > > in XML Schema, this would be gYear http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#gYear > > * a year and a month > > this would be http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#gYearMonth > > * a year, a month and a day > > this would be date http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date You are completely right. > * ... > > while xsd:dateTime imposes to us to commit to a 1sec precision... > > I suggest we change the range of date properties to rdfs:Literal, and > specify in the documentation that they should be of the form > YYYY[-MM[-DD[Thh[:mm[:ss[.fff]]]]]], to be interpreted as an incomplete > date. > > This would be very bad. RDF in many areas is linked to XML datatypes, > see e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#typedliterals , and I would > encourage us to follow this approach as close as possible. To solve your > problems, I would rather say that a date should be one of the above > built in XML Schema data types. I probably jumped to fast to the proposal above, for the reasons explained below. Nevertheless I agree with you that a better solution would be that section 4.5 be rewritten: A Date value MUST be represented using one of the following XML Schema datatypes: gYear, gYearMonth, date, dateTime, dateTimeStamp, depending on the precision available on the data. NB: I add dateTimeStamp which is new in XSD 1.1 [1], and imposes a timezone. I know that XSD 1.1. is not recommended yet, but OWL2 found a nice way to get around this problem [2]. This would have to be reflected in the API document as well [3]. Now, if I had to do only pure RDF, I would be happy with this solution. My problem is that we have been asked in some comments to make the ontology compliant with the OWL2-RL profile which, I think, makes sense (OWL-RL inferences can be efficiently implemented on top of a rule language). And OWL2-RL does not support xsd:gYear or xsd:gYearMonth. In fact, on only support dateTime and dateTimeStamp [4]. Hence my first proposal to use the smallest common denominator (rdfs:Literal), although we lose some semantics in the process. Here is a second proposal that I think will suit you better: we leave the range of 'date' (and its subproperties) *unspecified* in the OWL ontology, and refer to the document to explain that only date-related datatypes are expected (and only dateTime[Stamp] are supported by OWL2-RL). On the one hand, I'm afraid that this is only translating the problem from the ontology to the data: if people publish data using a datatype not supported by OWL2-QL, will their data be correctly processed by a OWL2-QL inference engine?... On the other hand, this would *allow* people to use the correct datatype if they want to, and/or to be compliant with OWL2-QL if they want to. pa [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/#XML_Schema_Datatypes [3] http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html#attributes-7 [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Entities_3 > > Felix > > > > > This hinders interoperability a tiny bit, but not as much as inventing a > day and an hour for media resources for which we only know the year. > > pa > > > > To all, some general remarks and conclusions > > * as most metadata format are more permissive regarding dates than > xsd:dateTime, I suggest we simply use rdfs:Literal for all our date > properties, and explain that it should be of the form > YYYY[-MM[-DD[Thh[:mm[:ss[.fff]]]]]] > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 06:51:39 UTC