W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: proposal for dateTime (ISSUE-138)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:36:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20081013.133630.15972471.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: proposal for dateTime (ISSUE-138) 
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:29:58 -0400

> > There has been some discussion of whether OWL can use XSD's new datatype
> > dateTime with required timezone, because our notion of equality derives
> > from the timeline for time, not the XSD 7-value internal data structure
> > for xsd:dateTime.  However, our notion of equality *is* the notion of
> > equality used in XSD for dateTime values with a required timezone, and
> > thus retains compatibility with XSD.
> > 
> > I propose that we resolve ISSUE-138 by staying with owl:dateTime in the
> > next round of publication but to put in a note saying that this datatype
> > is to be considered xsd:dateTime with a required timezone and that we
> > will move to the new XSD name for this datatype as soon as it is
> > determined.
> Isn't the next publication expected to be Last Call?

Oops - off by one.  I forgot that we just had the "next" publication.

> Do you have any indication how long it will talk to have this
> determination?

No - the WG has made a decision, but their editor's draft is not
accessible nor is their timeline.

It should be possible (but not ideal) to go to last call with the name
still unresolved, I guess.

>       -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 17:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC