LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  January 2011

DATETIME January 2011

Subject:

Re: comments on draft EDTF spec of 5 Nov 2011

From:

Bruce D'Arcus <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:10:57 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>
>> Really awesome set of constructive comments. I just want to respond to
>> one, particularly relevant to my use case.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> 5 Why an atomic datatype?
>>>
>>> Implicitly, the document seems to take for granted that information in
>>> all of these forms should be representable in what XSD refers to as a
>>> simple type.  But why?
>>
>> Because the expected domain for this spec is, at least in my strong
>> view, not limited to XML documents. For my use case (bibliographic
>> reference and citation formatting),we have a need to be able to
>> represent these sorts of data in RDF (including it's various
>> serialization formats), as well as JSON.
>
> That suggests that the scope and goals section of the document
> may need work.

Agreed.

> But both RDF and JSON have facilities for structured information; less
> convenient, perhaps, for some things than XML, but still present.
> Surely you don't want to suggest that either is incapable of handling
> this information in a structured way instead of as atoms?

No, but:

a) it would then be completely orthogonal to the W3C/ISO formats in
wide deployment, rather than an extension of it.

b) creating atomic datatypes is relatively easy technically: there's
an infrastructure for using those in standard XML (XSD, RNG, etc.) and
RDF technologies, and you can use the exact same values across those
contexts. OTOH, creating complete models for different formats is a
headache (do we really want to create an RDF vocabulary, and XML
schemas in XSD and RNG, and something analogous in JSON?).

And it also raises a rather obvious question, which is why should this
effort be any different than the W3C date-time format? E.g. why is it
OK for the latter to be atoms, but not the former?

Bruce

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager