> I recall many threads on this through the years. I can imagine that yes. My current understanding is that: - RDF1.0 following XSD1.0 doesn't have a "0000"^^xsd:gYear - RDF1.1 following XSD1.1 (and ISO8601) does have a "0000"^^xsd:gYear, defined as 1BCE (so the arithmetic on the lexical value is easier) see the note on https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#vp-dt-year . But I'm happy to be wrong. So, maybe instead of defining a time:CommonEra resource (which is ambiguous in terms of "0000"^^time:generalYear), we could define time:ISOCommonEra so that its use is clearer? That would clarify the semantics of the lexical value ex:date1 time:year "0000"^^time:generalYear ; time:era time:ISOCommonEra . > If 'unknown' and 'now' are constructed as temporal positions, not instants, then you could go with > [...] > Etc. I think those two will do. Yes perfect! Thanks, -- ElieReceived on Tuesday, 21 July 2020 07:05:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:03 UTC