- From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 18:05:41 +0200
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- CC: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-owl-wg@w3.org" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "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>
Actually, I. am not that cool either. dateTime is an incredible source of error by nature in particular if you want to express either tim or a date only. This is true in xml and now equally pollutes rdf and owl. I was trying to be nice but I believe that not doing this is not in favour of a larger adoption of RDF and OWL. Ignoring such requirements is technically not justifiable in particular when on the verge of getting duration in. Of course not considering duration would be even wronger. Date, time and duration are really critical to media description in many respects. dateTime is also useful in some cases. Put like it, it sounds less cool but maybe you'll take it more seriously :--( cheers, jp ________________________________________ From: Michael Schneider [schneid@fzi.de] Sent: 03 May 2012 17:02 To: Evain, Jean-Pierre Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org; public-rif-wg@w3.org; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org; public-rdf-wg Subject: Re: status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG Am 03.05.2012 16:20, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre: > 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. Sure, but, I'm afraid, the question here is not so much on coolness, but more on whether a certain datatype qualifies /technically/ to be included in the set of OWL 2 and RIF datatypes, and, of course, also whether the formal W3C standardization process allows a not-fully-closed W3C working group (after 2 1/2 years of dormancy) to add new features to an already finished recommendation. And, for me at least, these questions are not trivially to be answered. Btw, doing so may have the not-so-nice side effect to make a large set of currently available OWL 2 tools incomplete w.r.t. OWL 2, at least for some time of transition... Just a note from a notoriously un-cool guy, Michael > 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 > ************************************************** > > -- .......................................................... Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, IPE / WIM FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10–14 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany Tel.: +49 721 9654-726 Fax: +49 721 9654-727 michael.schneider@fzi.de www.fzi.de .......................................................... Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI) an der Universität Karlsruhe Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Stiftung Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Ralf Reussner, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer, Prof. Dr.-Ing. J. Marius Zöllner Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus .......................................................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** 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 16:07:19 UTC