[Fwd: [Moderator Action] status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG] from Sandro Hawke on 2012-05-02 (public-rif-comments@w3.org from May 2012)

Forwarded message 1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:12:26 +0000
Subject: [Moderator Action] status of xsd:duration in OWL (and RIF and SPARQL) - ACTION-164: RDF WG
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4FA15CC4.4090900@gmail.com>

Hi:

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