Re: revert recent timezone changes? put them in a new schema?

Hi Dan,

If you are at changing or "bettering" the scheme, I would recommend you 
stop creating the scheme automatically from the RFC (as the rfc won't 
change pretty soon ;-) and start adding the missing facts.

i.e. the scheme misses the types
#Value_DATE-TIME
#Value_DATE

which is really really bad, as they are used all over the place.
or did I miss something here?

on the "old" thing, perhaps you should note the well known datatype 
somewhere:
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date


on the "new" version i suggested this sugar on top:
 <owl:DatatypeProperty 
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#dateTime">
    <rdfs:domain>
      <owl:Class>
        <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
          <owl:Class 
rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#Value_DATE-TIME"/>
        </owl:unionOf>
      </owl:Class>
    </rdfs:domain>
    <rdfs:comment>dateTime property of Dates. Sugar.</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:label>dateTime</rdfs:label>
    <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"/>
  </owl:DatatypeProperty>


otherwise, the stuff is useful and used in
www.gnowsis.org/download

cheers
Leo




Es begab sich aber zu der Zeit 19.10.2004 15:25,  da Dan Connolly schrieb:

>On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 11:24, Masahide Kanzaki wrote:
>  
>
>>At 10:35 AM -0500 04.10.14, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I wonder if I should roll back the timezone changes
>>>and start a new schema with the new timezone design.
>>>
>>>I'm not inclined to maintain 2 schemas. I'm willing to
>>>move new development to schema with a URI different
>>>      
>>>
>>>from http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical but I'm not
>>    
>>
>>>offering to do maintenance on that one as well as
>>>new development.
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, yes. It's very welcome to roll back the changes in the schema of
>>current URI, as well as to discuss and develop modified schema with a new
>>namespace URI.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm... it seems that I never actually rolled them forward
>in the 1st place.
>
>I proposed the changes 14 Apr 2004 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-calendar/2004Apr/0022.html
>
>but the schema is at
>revision 1.14 date: 2004/04/07 18:45:16
>http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical
>
>
>  
>
>>>The tests and conversion tools will migrate to the
>>>new schema, I think; I don't think I can afford to
>>>keep 2 sets of them around.
>>>      
>>>
>>That's fine. Keep existing data as is, and move forward.
>>
>>cheers,
>>    
>>