This might be handy, the RDF WG published "Review of XSD Datatypes 1.1 Changes from an RDF perspective" [1]
It says: "6. We should include the following types, new in XSD 1.1, to the list of RDF-compatible XSD types: - xsd:dateTimeStamp, derived from xsd:dateTime by requiring a timezone offset." Though I am in agreement with Arthur on the SPARQL QUERY implications. It does sound like we are a bit ahead of the curve in adopting XSD 1.1 datatypes, I'd recommend we publish best practices as Arthur mentions until W3C RDF and SPARQL WGs publish their guidance. [1] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html Thanks, Steve Speicher IBM Rational Software OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net [email protected] wrote on 09/24/2012 03:33:59 PM: > From: Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> > To: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: 09/24/2012 03:36 PM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Should we transition new specs to use dateTimeStamp > instead of dateTime > Sent by: [email protected] > > John, > > The breakage can occur in SPARQL since literal datatypes include a type > URI, e.g. "2012-09-24T15:07:42-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime is not the same > literal as "2012-09-24T15:07:42-05:00"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp. Therefore a > query that compared date values to literal values might fail if the RDF > representation changed to use xsd:dateTimeStamp. > > The SPARQL spec has built-in support for xsd:dateTime in terms of syntax, > comparisons, and type casts. It does not mention xsd:dateTimeStamp > anywhere. I don't know if SPARQL would handle xsd:dateTimeStamp > reasonably. > > Regards, > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Arthur Ryman > > DE, Chief Architect, Reporting & > Portfolio Strategy and Management > IBM Software, Rational > > Toronto Lab | +1-905-413-3077 (office) | +1-416-939-5063 (mobile) > > > > > > From: > John Arwe <[email protected]> > To: > [email protected] > Date: > 09/24/2012 12:37 PM > Subject: > Re: [oslc-core] Should we transition new specs to use dateTimeStamp > instead of dateTime > Sent by: > [email protected] > > > > >> In short: why *not* [use the new datatype for NEW vocabulary]? > > > If we change the datatype it could result in breakage, e.g. in SPARQL > > queries. > > Maybe I'm dense, but not seeing how using it for NEW terms can change > (hence: possibly break) anything. > If it's new, there is nothing existing to break. Oder? > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Oslc-Core mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net >
