- From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:05:12 +0200
- To: "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Cc: "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
> 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,
--
Elie
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2020 07:05:36 UTC