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

Yes, I think a few other tweaks would be helpful, from some field experience.

Re: Michael's qualms, i think it's both possible and worth it. The dormancy was precisely to deal with this dependency, so I think it's reasonable.

Cheers,
Bijan.

On 3 May 2012, at 15:20, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:

> 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 :--)
> 
> Jean-Pierre
> 
> -----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!
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
> 
> 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 
> xsd:duration.
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> **************************************************
> 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 15:10:53 UTC