>> Is anyone using sdmx-attribute:coverageTime? The SDMX definition says
>> its free text so we might expect something like "2012-2000" but I
>> wondering if a time interval might be better

>> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
>> @prefix tl: <http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/timeline.owl#>.
>> @prefix qb: <http://purl.org/linked-data/cube#> .
>> @prefix sdmx-attribute:
>> <http://purl.org/linked-data/sdmx/2009/attribute#> .

>> :eg a qb:Dataset;
>>    rdfs:label "Dataset with start/end dates for coverage";
>>    sdmx:attribute:coverageTime :interval.

>> :interval
>>     a tl:Interval;
>>     tl:start "2000"^^xsd:Year;
>>          tl:end "2012"^^xsd:Year.

>> Any thoughts?

> Agreed that a time interval would be better. There's a few places where
> SDMX allows free text but where in Linked Data cases we'd tend to have
> structured vocab.

> There is also dct:temporal, which does expect a resource, as an
> alternative.

> For the interval itself I might be inclined to use interval:Interval
> (Stuart's ontology for the reference time service [1]) which in turn is
> a subclass of owltime:DateTimeInterval. Though tl: does look simpler.

> Dave

> [1] http://reference.data.gov.uk/def/intervals/