- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:45:19 -0400
- To: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- CC: public-owl-wg <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
My applications make heavy use of xsd datetime. my issue in applications is that i have unpredictable data details. sometimes i have year, month, day, (sometimes with and sometimes without timezone) and sometimes i also have hour and minutes (and sometimes even seconds) sometimes with and sometimes without timezone. so i would NOT support a requirement that all data either does or does have a time zone ; i would support an approach that allows me to have optional timezones. thanks, deborah Michael Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 12:27 +0100, Uli Sattler wrote: > > >> the 'easy' support for time that I was advocating yesterday seems to >> fit in nicely with this: >> >> - absence of a time zone (so I guess we would only support a >> *restriction* of xsd:dateTime, but this should be ok) >> > > I think we either need all constants to have a timezone, or none. I > prefer the first based on the assumption that more data "in the wild" > has timezones, and that such data is more completely defined. > > >> - the value space is continuous (since seconds are decimals between 0 >> and 60, according to my reading of Mike's [1]) and therefor, from an >> algorithms perspective, isomorphic to owl:number and thus it shouldn't >> be too much of a burden on the implementors. >> > > Agreed. > >
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 11:45:56 UTC