[tei-council] datatype issues (part 1)

[Syd Bauman]

> > Yes! That's it in a nutshell. (EDW90 does propose all the W3C
> > temporal types save duration be included;
> What was the reasoning for not including duration again?

I don't know that there was any good reasoning. We need to think out 
  <date>, <time>
  <dateRange>, <timeRange>
  <dateStruct>, <timeStruct>
and the various other uses of tei.data.temporal. It certainly
wouldn't make sense to use a duration on, e.g., from= and to= of
<dateRange>. 


> Let me just confirm this because my head must be off in the clouds,
> does ISO 8601:2004 say that in order to have a valid time it has to
> be complete to the second? ... wikipedia ... says:
> "It is also acceptable to omit elements to reduce precision. hh:mm,
> hhmm, and hh are all used."
> ...
> Now, is the problem with the W3C Schema datatypes and the way they
> implement the ISO standard? I know there are some variations, but
> it seems like a pretty major one to insist on 13:14:54 instead of
> just 13:15.

Yes, you have it right, and I think this question has already been
answered, but thought it worth repeating: ISO 8601 permits both hh:mm
and hh, and also hh,hh (fractions of an hour) & hh:mm,mm (fractions
of a minute). W3C does not permit any of these. I don't think the
fractional hours or minutes are that important, but others may
disagree.