- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:41:28 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Michael Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, public-owl-wg <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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. i agree with both of the points here and have a comment a - how do we decide what we can realistically get interoperability on? is there any current work on xml datatypes with respect to datetime? b - yes - having just timezone be a nonstandard extension to datetime is a simpler thing to sell. > > Cheers, > Bijan. >
Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 12:42:07 UTC