Re: An approach to xsd:dateTime

On 29 Jul 2008, at 15:34, Jie Bao wrote:

> Ian
> I support the idea. There is still a point I'm not quite clear. When
> we say "tool", does it mean an ontology editor or reasoner?

I mean user application. Editors and reasoners and acquisition tools  
can do what makes sense.

So, for example, I would expect Protege4 to flag these as problems  
and offer different ways of repairing or ignoring them. But a text  
mining application that generated OWL might choose to always resolve  
to UTC.

> If it is
> an editor, it may mean in the syntax of the language timezone is
> always required and an editor will require a missing one.

Or to add an interval explicitly. (I think intervals can be a  
sensible choice, just not a good default (at this time)).

> If it is a
> reasoner, it may mean that we still allow missing timezone to be
> legal, but a reasoner will try to give it an interpretation (e.g.,
> adding a timezone or interpreting it as an interval depending on
> user's intruction).

Indeed, flags could control what the reasoner did.


Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 15:11:01 UTC