>A proper use of a timeDuration would be that the movie runs "PT1H22M". >I believe that your interpretations is that >"2000-01-23T13:00:00-06:00/PT1H22M" would also be a valid timeDuration >which I believe is a misinterpretation of the datatypes document.
If you see a duck you expect it to quack not bark. Since the the WD authors based the timeDuration format on ISO8601 and the WD wording that describes the 'pinning' of a duration is similar to ISO8601, I think it's reasonable to expect they meant to use the pinning format from ISO8601. Only they know for sure, of course. >I'm curious how you would propose doing bound checking on a timePeriod. >If a minInclusive constraint is added to a timePeriod, is one time >period less than another if its duration is smaller or if it started earlier. If a new type 'timePeriod' were to be defined as "a time interval with specific start and stop times", I'm not sure you could constrain it with currently defined terms. You'd probably need facets like 'minStart', 'maxStart', 'minEnd', 'maxEnd', 'minDuration', and 'maxDuration'. The point I wanted to make though was that defining a datatype that requires 2 or more attributes to express would add another level of complexity in validation.
