Hi,
I had exactly the same observation as Pascal, including the same
revelation that xsd:decimal actually allows fractions.
This was also my comment on a earlier request for review [1]
I've created ISSUE-157 to add a example with fragments to the
specification
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Dec/0196.html
Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen
twitter: @semanticfire
tel. +31(0)6-53182997
Netage B.V.
http://netage.nl
Esdoornstraat 3
3461ER Linschoten
The Netherlands
From: "Christoph, Pascal" <christoph@hbz-nrw.de>
To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Date: 07-04-2017 12:24
Subject: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time
Hello *,
what's the smallest duration of time one can specifiy with the proposed
time
ontology? I wonder if it's really a full "second"? (Couldn't find anything
smaller but may have missed it).
Analog to spatial ontology, where you can define very (indefinitely?)
small
spatial dimensions, this should be also possible within the time ontology.
If you would allow 'https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#nt-seFrag'
(instead of
xsd:decimal) as datatype for time:second you wouldn't even need tons of
new
properties to be able to be arbitrarily precise.
If it's too nice for one to always assume decimal numbers when hitting
time:second I would propose one new time:TemporalUnit property (say:
time:secondFrag) which would suffice to define every time(t), where "t <
1s".
pascal
[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Bart van Leeuwen/netage]