Re: data expression of date information

I think that going with the ISO standard as a first pass is going to be
problemmatic - since it includes so many kinds of time expression you are
likely to get low interoperability.

W3C published a note about a particular subset of the ISO standard that may
be a useful starting point. Looking at what the informal RDF calendar group
[1] does might also be a good idea for working out easy interoperability in
RDF formats...




On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Al Gilman wrote:

>At 09:16 PM 2002-12-18, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>>8. date.  TO DO.
>>I have an action item from last week to do some research.
>As it happens, John Cowan and I were reminiscing about this as our cocktail
>party conversation at XML2002.
>1. Standard practice that EARL should adhere to:
>- Base semantics on the ISO standard.
>- Define 'date' as a subset of dateTime, which you define first.
>2. Precedents you should check before deciding on subsets and encoding:
>XML Schema (types)
>IETF Calendaring and Scheduling - RFC3339
>3. Personal recommendation:  In your 'date' subset do not allow, or at least
>discourage, the omission of a localOffset indication.  Actually, for
>logging purposes of observations related to the Internet, a full dateTime
>should be preferred anyway.
>4. Warning: omitting localOffset is legitimate in planDateTime if a location
>is given in geographic terms.  This is the "when it's noon in Boston" usage
>as opposed to "17:00 UTC" or "12:00 -05" usage.  But I don't think that this
>needs to be anything more than a remark in defining how to express past events
>in EARL.
>>wendy a chisholm
>>world wide web consortium
>>web accessibility initiative

Charles McCathieNevile  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E ------------ WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Monday, 23 December 2002 15:56:05 UTC