Print

Print


Hello!

> > I consider that the W3C did a good job about these questions when
> > reworking XML Schema 1.0 to XML Schema 1.1 and I suggest to find 
> > inspiration from the concept of "two-property tuples" for durations
> > as of XML Schema 1.1.
> for duration normalization rules,
Here, I will try to summarize what is relevant for our purposes. Leap 
seconds are NOT taken into account. Durations are assumed to begin and end 
within the same time zone offset. I also assume a Gregorian calendar.

Duration is often measured with the SI unit "second" and its multiples.

In our context, we want to be able to express (calendar) years, which may 
have different lengths (in seconds).

A (calendar) year has, though, always the same length in months, namely: 
12 months. Months (and thus years) have different lenghts (in seconds), 
though.

In XML Schema 1.1, this problem is solved throught the "two-property 
tuples" for durations. In other words, there are two different units of 
measurement for duration: seconds and months, each of which have their 
multiples, thus enabling c14n as:

60 seconds = one minute

60 minutes = one hour

24 hours = one day

And for months:

12 months = one year

Seconds and months are only partially ordered: One month is always longer 
than 27 days (2332800 seconds) and shorter that 32 days (2764800 seconds). 
We can NOT order one month vs 30 days. Partial ordering is described in 
detail in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-xmlschema11-2-20091203/#vp-du-second but 
maybe we do not need to focus on partial ordering.

In other words, duration is two-dimensional. One dimension is expressed in 
seconds whereas the other dimension is expressed in months. We can 
partially compare these two dimensions, but we can not translate any of 
them to the other one.

Every duration could be written with nothing more than seconds and months, 
such as:

P123MT1234S which may be rewritten

P10Y3MT20M34S according to the c14n above. But

P3M is NOT expressable in seconds (or its multiple: days).

I hope this mail brings some clarifications.

Regards!

SaaĊĦha,