Re: editorial comments on

From: Alan Ruttenberg <>
Subject: editorial comments on
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:26:08 -0400

> For
> > This treatment of dateTime values appears to violate the equality of
> dateTime values from the LC draft, as dateTime values without timezone
> information that compare equal according to the LC draft can be turned
> into dateTime values that do not compare equal. The WG would appreciate
> guidance on how to do this processing in a compliant manner.
> Does the "This" refer to our proposed repair mechanism for adding time
> zones to dateTimes without timezones?
> I thought being a bit more explicit by having an example would be
> helpful for them.

I changed this to "Adding in missing timezone values".

> > There are other potential solutions to reasoning with such dateTime
> values (such as treating them as true intervals). However, these
> solutions also appear to violate equality of dateTime values.
> Is the proposal for treating them as intervals coming from the XML
> Schema spec? If so, it's probably worth pointing out what where and
> giving an explicit example.

No, these are alternatives from us.  I could remove this bit.

> > We also do not find a justification for having the range of timezone
> be -840 to +840. The range of timezones currently in use ranges from
> UTC-12 to UTC+14 (
> Are we asking for a justification or are we saying we would prefer to
> use -12 to +14?

The range of timezone affects the semantics of dateTime so it could
affect us.   However, we are, in essence, overriding this part of
dateTime, so I suppose that we could remove this paragraph.

> > This section of the document also confused the WG, as it did not
> mention dateTime. Only a careful examination of the entire LC draft
> shows that year and second probably refer to the year and second that
> appear as parts of dateTime (and other datatypes). The WG suggests that
> the relationship between year and second and the actual datatypes be
> made more clear in this section of the LC draft.
> >
> Had trouble resolving "This". The previous paragraph is about
> xsd:decimal and I didn't understand the connection.

Modified this bit to say "The section of the draft related to minimal
conformance for infinite datatypes ...".

> > Separately, the OWL WG has noticed...
> Should this be included in this communication or be in a separate one?
> If it is separate and included in this communication consider having the
> subject line mention it.

This also affects OWL.  I'll remove the "separately".

> -Alan


Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:32:22 UTC