Re: a new dateTime/timezone design, with datatypes

On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 08:58, Masahide Kanzaki wrote:
> At 5:04 PM -0500 04.4.14, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >Summary: my discomfort with our timezone design motivated
> >me to implement a new one. Who likes it? Who dislikes it?
> 
> Please change namespace uri if you would introduce such a significant
> change that makes most existing RDFical files invalid.

I'd like to avoid that.

Nobody should be thinking that this namespace is completely stable.

Our policy is...

"
      * we announce all changes to the schema www-rdf-calendar
      * if anyone screams, within a week or so, we'll back out the
        changes (for further discussion)"

 -- http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/

I/we made this explicit in the schema recently:

  <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical">
    <dc:source>
      <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt"/>
    </dc:source>
    <owl:versionInfo>$Id: ical.rdf,v 1.14 2004/04/07 18:45:16 connolly
Exp $</owl:versionInfo>
    <owl:versionInfo>subject to change with notice to
www-rdf-calendar@w3.org</owl:versionInfo>
    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/"/>
    <rdfs:seeAlso
rdf:resource="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/"/>
    <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="http://esw.w3.org/topic/RdfCalendar"/>
  </owl:Thing>

If you don't think this change is a sufficient improvement to merit
the cost of change, please say so.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 10:33:35 UTC