W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2012

RE: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 16:20:32 +0200
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
CC: "public-rif-wg@w3.org" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D600116304E60BF@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
As a humble user, I would welcome this addition of duration because we need it in the AV industry (I am form the European Broadcasting Union).

Also, if not already solved, having date and time as separate datatype would be cool.

I currently have in my ontologies duration expressed as dateTime (or edit units to timecode) and dateTime is a pain :--)


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] 
Sent: mercredi, 2. mai 2012 18:12
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org; public-rdf-wg
Subject: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG

The XSD 1.1 specs are have finally achieved REC status!

There appears to have been some late work on xsd:duration, which may have made 
it suitable for use in RDF and OWL.  The RDF WG is poised to add xsd:duration 
to the recommended/permitted/approved (whatever) list of XSD datatypes for RDF.

Could the OWL WG provide *advisory* input as to whether this is a bad idea?  
Ideally, if RDF adds xsd:duration, OWL should as well, so it would be good if 
the OWL WG could determine whether the current definition of xsd:duration will 
be "added" to OWL.

If RIF and SPARQL WGs are active, they may also want to take a look at 



This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 14:21:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:42:03 UTC