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

Kerry,

I didn't get a formal action for this, but Ray is prepared to give a ten minute WebEx presentation on EDTF on Wednesday next week. Is there a specific process for inviting him to the online meeting?

Regarding the timing of his presentation I think it's easier for you to clarify that bilaterally.

Best,

Lars

*** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek *** 
-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Informationsinfrastruktur und Bestanderhaltung
Adickesallee 1
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: +49-69-1525-1752
Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799
mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de 
http://www.dnb.de



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svensson, Lars
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 9:24 PM
> To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Cc: Denenberg, Ray <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) 1.0”**
> > <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 Friday, 11 September 2015 11:23:47 UTC