OPC: Normative references W3C DTF

[caroline arms]

I have been looking back at Part 2 from 2012.  What I find follows.
Based on that, I am inclined to believe that we might be able to
consider "dcterms:W3CDTF" simply to be a particular string and could
find a way to drop the W3C note as a normative reference.  Presumably
we could have it in the bibliography and an informative note.  The RNG
schema already uses
W3CDTF = xsd:gYear | xsd:gYearMonth | xsd:date | xsd:dateTime
which presumably means Murata-san believed they were equivalent to our intent.

I haven't looked up the specs for gYear, etc.  That is clearly needed

To be continued...

      Caroline

========  what I found =========

In Part 2 from 2012, the W3C Date/Time note is mentioned in two
contexts:  Core Properties and  Digital Signatures.

For Core Properties, it relates to dcterms:created and dcterms:modified

>>> clips from PART 2 from 2012
11.1 Core Properties Part

In example 11-1
<dcterms:created xsi:type="dcterms:W3CDTF">
2005-06-12
</dcterms:created>
…
<dcterms:modified xsi:type="dcterms:W3CDTF">2005-11-23</dcterms:modified>

11.4  Schema Restrictions for Core Properties

3.  Producers shall not create a document element that contains the
xsi:type attribute, except for a
<dcterms:created> or <dcterms:modified> element where the xsi:type
attribute shall be present and
shall hold the value dcterms:W3CDTF, where dcterms is the namespace
prefix of the Dublin Core namespace. Consumers shall consider a
document element that violates this constraint to be an error.
>>>

>>> schema clips from PART 2 from 2012
in the Core Properties XML Schema , I see:

<xs:complexType name="CT_CoreProperties">
12 <xs:all>
…
15 <xs:element ref="dcterms:created" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
…
23 <xs:element ref="dcterms:modified" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
...
28 </xs:all>

and in the Core Properties RNG schema I see:

13 & element dcterms:created {
14 attribute xsi:type { xsd:QName "dcterms:W3CDTF" }, xml_lang?, W3CDTF
15 }?
…
23 & element dcterms:modified {
24 attribute xsi:type { xsd:QName "dcterms:W3CDTF" }, xml_lang?, W3CDTF
25 }?
…
37 W3CDTF = xsd:gYear | xsd:gYearMonth | xsd:date | xsd:dateTime


====
In Digital Signatures it relates to ST-Format which declares a pattern
for a date.

>>> clips from PART 2 from 2012
13.2.4.20 Format Element      (also in M6.23)

Specifies the format of the date/time stamp. The producer shall create
a data [TYPO, should be date]/time format that conforms to the syntax
described in the W3C Note "Date and Time Formats". The consumer shall
consider a format that does not conform to the syntax described in
that WC3 note to be in error.
[M6.23]

>>> schema clips from PART 2 from 2012
In the Digital Signatures XML schema I see:

<xsd:simpleType name="ST_Format">
29 <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
30 <xsd:pattern
value="(YYYY)|(YYYY-MM)|(YYYY-MM-DD)|(YYYY-MM-DDThh:mmTZD)|(YYYY-MM31
DDThh:mm:ssTZD)|(YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sTZD)"/>
32 </xsd:restriction>
33 </xsd:simpleType>

and

in the Digital Signatures RNG schema, I see

ST_Format =
33 xsd:string {
34 pattern =
35 "(YYYY)|(YYYY-MM)|(YYYY-MM-DD)|(YYYY-MM-DDThh:mmTZD)|(YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ssTZD)|(YYYY-MM36
DDThh:mm:ss.sTZD)"
37 }






On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:29 AM, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I am reviewing normative references of the OPC revision draft.
>
> 1) XML 3th edition
>
> We should drop XML 3th edition since we already have the 4th edition
> as a normative reference.
>
> 2) Reference to RFC 4234 (ABNF)
>
> We have two problems.  First, this RFC is obsoleted by RFC 5234.
> Second, we borrow path segments defined RFC 3986 and 3987, but they
> use RFC 2234, which is obsoleted by RFC 4234.
>
> I think that we should use the latest version, RFC 5234.  RFC 7231
> does the same thing even though it references the non-terminal defined
> RFC 3987.  To mimic RFC 7231, we should also introduce a production
> rule:
>
>      isegment-nz       = <isegment-nz, see [RFC3987], Section 2.2>
>
> 3) W3C DTF
>
> W3C DTF is a W3C Note rather than a recommendation.  We are not
> allowed to reference a W3C Note, unless we create a reference
> explanatory report.
>
> I am wondering if we can migrate to gYear, gYearMonth, date, and
> datetime of W3C XML Schema Part 2.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto