Re: Some background on Extended Date Time Format (EDTF) (was: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations)

I agree with Simon, actually. I mentioned EDTF because the addition of
operators on ISO-8601 expressions corresponds to some things Iım trying
experimentally. However, for potential core standards like OWL-Time, I
have only advocated one change: in that case, modifying the Range of
hasBeginning and hasEnd to include ProperInterval as well as Instant. I
think modest (?) change will add significant expressiveness.

Karl

On 9/8/15, 5:49 PM, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

>I do have a concern with this approach. It amounts to embedding more and
>more information into a coded string.
>That information could be captured more explicitly by specific RDF
>predicates. 
>
>Not that I am against micro-syntaxes in their place.
>There is some stuff that RDF is not good at (for example - ordered lists
>and arrays) so it is appropriate to break out into a micro-syntax
>sometimes. 
>
>ISO 8601 and its web versions (xsd simple types) are almost universally
>accepted as a way to put 7 pieces of information in a string.
>But it is not clear to me that we should increase that to 8, 9 or 10!
>Maybe uncertainty belongs in a coded time-position, but let's not push
>this too far. 
>
>Simon 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
>Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 5:24 AM
>To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>Cc: Denenberg, Ray <rden@LOC.GOV> (rden@LOC.GOV) <rden@LOC.GOV>
>Subject: Some background on Extended Date Time Format (EDTF) (was: ISSUE
>14: temporal reasoning and relations)
>
>All,
>
>On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:58 PM, Karl Grossner wrote:
>
>[...]
>> **************
>> Further support for uncertain temporal expressions-- Contributed by
>> Karl Grossner <https://kgeographer.org> 2015-08-11
>> 
>> OWL-Time does support some uncertain expressions by means of interval
>> relations accounting for "before," "after," (sometime) "during," etc.
>> It does not allow for approximate and vague expressions such as "circa
>> 560 CE" or "sometime in the early 1920's." These could be covered in
>>two ways:
>> 
>> 1. by allowing a '~' operator to accompany any ISO-8601 expression
>> 
>> 2. by allowing the hasBeginning and hasEnd elements to be specified by
>> intervals as well as by instants
>> 
>> e.g. the object of a hasEnd property could be an interval having
>> earliestEnd and latestEnd properties A number of further OWL-Time
>> extensions, such as adding an "uncertain"
>> operator ('?') to '~', for an entire ISO-8601 expression or parts
>> thereof, are proposed in the fairly recent US Library of Congress
>> document, **"Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF) 1.0²**
>> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html>
>
>I've been in touch with Ray Denenberg from the Library of Congress (in
>cc) who is the primary editor of EDTF. He gave me some valuable
>background information on the document and allowed me to share that with
>the WG.
>
>EDTF was developed on the request of Rebecca Guenther from the Library of
>Congress (LoC) who wanted a date/time format more friendly to library
>requirements. After the spec was published in its current form
>(2012-01-13) it was submitted to the W3C as a member submission (LoC is a
>W3C member) with the primary goal to make EDTF become a primitive data
>type (e. g. xs:edtf). The W3C rejected it as out of scope.
>
>Ray then approached ISO and after quite some time he got the attention of
>TC154 where ISO 8601 resides. Timing was good, because they recently
>convened a working group for "8601 part 2", essentially extensions to
>8601. Ray is on that group and on their conference calls much of the
>discussion has been about EDTF. The group seems to be willing to
>incorporate most or all of EDTF into 8601 part 2. Ray would want EDTF to
>be a profile of 8601 (he has introduced the notion of "profile" into the
>discussion) and that only works if the features of EDTF are all in 8601.
>A first draft of 8601 part 2 should be available in March 2016.
>
>Ray is definitely willing to work with us to see that the SDWWG
>requirements are reflected in EDTF and he also suggests that someone from
>the group gets involved in the TC154 work.
>
>My suggestion is that we invite Ray to one of the Wednesday telcos where
>he can present EDTF to the group. As Ray, I find it a bit astonishing
>that the W3C turned down the member submission (but I'm sure they had
>their reasons for it). If we decide that EDTF can solve some of our
>requirements, I think we should help to move the document forward (and if
>we want to use the format on the web, we definitely need a datatype).
>
>Perhaps we can find a few minutes to talk about this tomorrow.
>
>Best,
>
>Lars

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 01:34:52 UTC