Hi Misha, all,
It was me who approached Misha. The Usage Board and Date working group have
been discussing the desire to refer to ranges and have ISO 8601 dates
without hyphens in them - you can read the relevant agenda, reports and
minutes from Shanghai as soon as they are available.
The idea of changing the W3C Note was just that - an idea, which came up in
discussion with members of the date working group. The purpose of writing to
you was to see what you as an author of the note thought of the idea before
taking it to general discussion.
One way or another it would be useful to have a specification that covered
the needs for dates in Dublin Core, and discussion suggested that
(a) ISO 8601 covered some things but is not an exact match.
(b) The date time note is important to the Dublin Core community, and any
solution should not ignore it
(c) The development of datatypes for XML and RDF since the date time note
was published means it might be a good idea to update the way that dates and
times, including those following the format in the note, are described in
XML and RDF applications of Dublin Core
It therefore seemed to me that there might be value in updating the Note
instead of or as well as trying to write a further specification. Which made
the obvious next step to ask the authors of the Note, who should be involved
in any changes made to it.
Having done that, I think the obvious next steps are
1. Continue the discussion of date specifications in the DC-DATE mailing list.
2. Continue discussion about whether the best approach to doing this is to
updat the note, issue a new note, a combination of the two, or to do this
completely outside W3C.
Cheers, and I apologise for the apparent panic caused.
Chaals
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:47:47 +0100, Misha Wolf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I've received a request which I find very worrying and am writing to
>this list in order to engage in a discussion with whoever it is that
>has caused the request to be made. I've been asked what are my
>views about the W3C Note "Date and Time Formats" being changed to
>accommodate various DC requirements. The examples given showed that
>the changes would result in the Note no longer being a profile of
>ISO 8601. I responded as follows:
>
> I have no objection to updating the Note, but would want to be
> involved. The Note is a profile of ISO 8601 and I would be
> strongly opposed to any proposal which would make it not be a
> profile of that standard. I get the impression from your mail
> that, indeed, the DC folks want something entirely different.
> This Note is referenced from many places (Google shows 409 links
> to the Note). If DC wants something that is not ISO 8601
> compliant, they are at liberty to write another Note. It would
> not be acceptable for all the documents that reference the Note
> to suddenly find themselves referencing something entirely
> different.
>
>Please can the person(s) or group(s) in the DC community that have
>asked for these changes (i) make themselves known and (ii) respond
>to the concerns I've expressed above.
>
>Thanks.
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
>
>Misha Wolf
>Standards Manager
>Product and Platform Architecture Group
>Reuters
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------- -
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
>Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
>information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging
>
>Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
>sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
>the views of Reuters Ltd.
|