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

On 4 May 2012, at 12:34, Ivan Herman wrote:
[snip]
>> New features are explicitly allowed. So we don't even have to get into what "feature" means. It's explicitly allowed.
> 
> Sorry, you are right. But it also says:
> 
> "For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C must follow the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation."

As I acknowledged below:

"Clearly not, afaict. We could do that, of course. We would have to have a nominal LC, CR, and PR, though these are frankly, to my mind, ridiculous."

But my understanding is that that would be an *edited recommendation*, not a new recommendation.

I am happy to push toward a 2.1 and I'm also happy to try to add datatypes in a non-Rec way.

But surely this is a prime example of strong interpretation of the Rules getting in the way of what is a relatively minor fix.

BTW, Can we add comments to the Functional Syntax as requested? I think that would be useful as well :)

> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#rec-advance
> 
> which means going through the whole WD-LC-CR-PR-REC route.

Sure, but it can be superlightweight. (We could go straight to a short LC. Reasonable CR, then short PR.) The key bit is CR I think...i.e., we'd need to get a couple of implementations on board. But these are not profoundly tricky datatypes. (It's not like adding floats or decimals or rationals or strings). It's mostly a syntax level tweak.

I think this is a very super scoped change. If we open the door any further, that would be dangerous, I agree.

Let me put it another way, I think it could be a very superscoped change that nevertheless would be high value.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 11:40:09 UTC