Re: An approach to xsd:dateTime

From: "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: An approach to xsd:dateTime
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:45:09 -0400

> 
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 28 Jul 2008, at 19:02, Jie Bao wrote:
> >>
> >> To explain a bit more for my objection to the proposal at the F2F3:
> >>
> >> "PROPOSAL: datetime literals with missing timezones are not in the
> >> syntax; tools MAY insert a timezone, but SHOULD produce a warning if
> >> they do so"
> >>
> >> The part I object is that missing timezone should be disallowed from
> >> the syntax. In many cases, a time zone is a default context, and as
> >> default contexts typically behave, it may be omitted from a
> >> description from this context. Tools may or may not be able to
> >> rediscover a missing zone.
> >
> > Yes. That's part of the point. We can't guess reasoanble ones.
> >
> >> The burden should not be on users to always
> >> provide such information.
> >
> > Who else?
>
> Tools may help in two ways: if such information can be rediscovered,
> then add it. If there is no way to find it precisely, then give it a
> *reasonable* interpretation.

This seems to me to be precisely the proposal that was voted on just
before lunch.  Tools MAY recover the information, if there is any doubt
they provide a warning, but MAY also put in a reasonable answer, in
which case they SHOULD provide a warning.

peter

Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 18:57:39 UTC