- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:59:14 +0100
- To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, public-owl-wg <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Jul 2008, at 12:45, 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. Then it seems to me that we need a fairly detailed proposal or requirements or examples from you. The datetime stuff *quickly* gets ratholey, esp. from an implementation point of view. If we are going to include *something* not essentially trivial, we need active champions. And the real question, I'd wager, is what can we realistically get interop on. You're probably not much worse off if timezones are a non- standard extension than if *all* of datetime is a non-standard extension. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 12:03:50 UTC