Re: POI Core Strawman: ISSUE-26: How do we represent times?

I'd recommend using the lexical format definitions here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#isoformats

It's profiled from ISO8601 and so there is no fee required to read the 
document.
and it is a W3C Recommendation, not a NOTE as the 1997 note below, and 
are in wide use.

See section D.2 "Truncated and Reduced" formats for the description of time.

Leigh.



On 05/12/2011 02:29 AM, Thomas Wrobel wrote:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime allows progressive detail down to
> the fraction of a second.
>
> It doesn't seem to however cover specifying a time but not a date,
> which I think is usefull when it comes to simple repetition. If we
> want to allow time specification without a date then we do need a
> co-existing alternative.
> -- 
> Also, I strongly feel we should rename this element.
> Time is highly generic and can mean many things ("creation time?
> opening time? time of the data being put online? etc"). The name
> should be clear.
> Assuming we have two elements to determine a time range (both optional),
> Id suggest having it "ExistanceStart" or just "Start" to clarifying we
> are specifying the range the POIs exists from or over.  A similar
> "End" field would be used to mark the end of the range.
> (a missing start or end would just mean the range of the POI in time
> goes to infinity in that direction....ie, has existed forever or will
> exist forever, or both. Both specified without a date could indicate a
> repeating range  etc)
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~
> Reviews of anything, by anyone;
> www.rateoholic.co.uk
> Please try out my new site and give feedback :)
>
>
>
> On 12 May 2011 07:33, Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com> wrote:
> > Matt Womer wrote
> >>It was said that time should be optional, I had tried to indicate 
> that it
> >> is by saying "can have one or more",
> >>which was meant to imply "has zero or more". I've changed the text 
> to say
> >> "MAY have one or more".
> > ...
> >>As for representing the time itself, I've pulled in info from XML 
> Schema
> >> Datatypes, but that only gives us
> >>some primitives to play with, not how we're going to put them together.
> >
> > One option for the xsd:dateTime and xsd:date type is to allow either 
> type in
> > cases where you have date and optional time.
> > They're lexically distinct, so this works for XSD structures or for RNC
> > structures describing XML, and for JSON, etc.
> >
> > 2011-05-11T12:24:45-0000
> > and
> > 2011-05-11
> >
> > So the latter indicates a date without a time (precision).
> >
> > Similarly, if you want to allow dateTime or time (and default the 
> date via
> > context) it's also lexically distinct.
> >
> > Leigh.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>