RE: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time

Hi Simon,

Exactly what I was looking for! thanks!

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:   <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
To:     <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>, <christoph@hbz-nrw.de>
Cc:     <public-sdw-comments@w3.org>
Date:   17-04-2017 09:49
Subject:        RE: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time



Thanks Bart, Christof – 
 
I have put an additional example in the Temporal Precision section which 
shows use of fractional seconds (milliseconds). 
 
I’ll close ISSUE-157. 
 
Simon 
 
From: Bart van Leeuwen [mailto:bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, 11 April, 2017 00:12
To: Christoph, Pascal <christoph@hbz-nrw.de>
Cc: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time
 
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]