W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-58 (time-iso8601): is reference to iso8601 appropriate? [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:08:29 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|87155e22423953e58d49de074187da57n7LM8Y08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E52C54D.6080201@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi Graham,
This issue was closed, pending review.
Are you satisfied with the changes? Can we
close it? Alternatively, you can reopen it,
or create a more specific issue.
Thanks,
Luc

PS See note on this issue's page



On 29/07/11 10:03, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-58 (time-iso8601): is reference to iso8601 appropriate? [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/58
>
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
> [[
> Time is defined according to [ISO8601].
> ]]
>
> I don't think it is appropriate of an open standard to be normatively
> dependent on a standard that is available only on payment of a charge
> for access.  In this case, we could make reference to the XML scheme
> datatypes, which would also require us to think about my next point...
>
> As far as I'm aware, ISO 8601 covers both points in time and time
> intervals.  As such a bare reference to ISO 86012 is not really an
> adequate definition: which do we want?  I suspect
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime.
>
>
>
>
>    
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 21:09:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:00 UTC