- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:51:21 -0400
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, public-owl-wg <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Deb, Could you say a bit about how the datetime data is used? Are you simply doing retrieval? Sorting (if so, how to compare those with/ without timezone?) Best, Alan On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote: > > 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 11:52:00 UTC