RE: W3C Draft OWL-Time ontology for final review.

Hi Andrea,

My first, naïve, thoughts:

1. see the other thread!

2. It seems reasonable that a TRS is needed to express the temporal coverage of a data set, and I cannot imagine how a TRS could "exclude this". The coverage would have to be defined in terms of a duration, or a collection of instants, or  a collection of durations, or a mixture.

But it is late in the day, and maybe my imagination needs a rest.

3. I do not think that the time ontology document stops 'hasTRS' being made a sub-property of a dct property. I think it better to say less rather than more, and await some implementation experience which would be documented elsewhere.

4. I am not sure the asymmetry introduced into before and after is deliberate or a mistake. The Allen algebra is symmetrical but Simon has give 'before' an expanded definition. See also 5. 

time:DateTimeInterval is in the owl:DeprecatedClass, so why would it need an explicit property? There is a typo: "of of".

Similarly, time:hasDateTimeDescription has the owl:DeprecatedProperty, so why an explicit property instance?

6. Inconsistent referencing accepted. Will change. Perhaps we can persuade academia to adopt a single standard across the globe ;-)

7. I do not think that most of your errata are errata. I think that is the intent of the examples to show the use of different equivalent elements.

8. Good catch. I think this may be to do with the changing W3C toolset.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu [mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:37 AM
> To: Little, Chris; Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: W3C Draft OWL-Time ontology for final review.
> 
> Dear Chris, dear Simon,
> 
> I carried out a first review of OWL Time (great work!). I include below
> my comments.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrea
> 
> ----
> 
> 1.  :hasBeginning and :hasEnd : I've already commented in a separate
> thread about the possibility of using them with literal values:
> 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Apr/0110.html

> 
> 
> 2. :hasTRS (http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#time:hasTRS):
> 
> This property could be relevant also to express the temporal coverage
> of a dataset - actually, the lack of such a property (and for SRSs as
> well) was one of the open issues in GeoDCAT-AP. I see that there's no
> domain specified, so, formally, this should be possible. But I would
> like to check with you if you see any issue, and whether its informal
> definition (i.e., "The temporal reference system used by a temporal
> position or extent description.") could possibly exclude this.
> 
> 
> 3. Again about :hasTRS : I wonder whether there may be a relationship
> between the TRS specification in OWL Time and expressing conformity
> with a given standard / specification as done in DQV (dct:conformsTo) -
> see DQV diagram:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#model

> 
> If this is the case, :hasTRS could be made a subproperty of
> dct:conformsTo, and a reference to DQV could be added saying that
> :hasTRS can  be used to address a specific case.
> 
> 
> 4. There's probably the need of checking that the specification
> reflects all what defined in the OWL representation. The ones I found:
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#time:after -> lacks the specification of
> domain and range
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#time:before -> lacks the specification
> of :after as inverse property
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#time:DateTimeInterval -> lacks
> "Deprecated: true"
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#time:hasDateTimeDescription -> lacks
> "Deprecated: true"
> 
> 
> 5. Again about :after and :before: Their informal definitions are
> aligned, however :before includes an additional sentence:
> 
> [[
> Thus, before can be considered to be basic to instants and derived for
> intervals.
> ]]
> 
> Should this also be added to the informal definition of :after?
> 
> Also, the expression "basic to instants and derived for intervals" may
> be not straightforward for all readers, so I wonder whether it could be
> somehow explained.
> 
> 
> 6. The "format" of author names in the "References" section is not used
> consistently. Sometimes the pattern is "last-name, first-name-
> initials", sometimes "first-name-initials last-name". Also, in some
> cases a dot is used after the initials, and sometimes not.
> 
> E.g.:
> 
> [AF-97]
> Allen, J. F. and Ferguson, G. 1997. Actions and events in interval
> temporal logic. In: Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. O. Stock, ed.,
> Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 205-245. doi:10.1007/978-0-585-
> 28322-7_7
> 
> ...
> 
>  [CR-05]
> S.J.D. Cox, S.M. Richard, A formal model for the geologic time scale
> and global stratotype section and point, compatible with geospatial
> information transfer standards. Geosphere 1 (2005) 119.
> doi:10.1130/GES00022.1.
> 
> ...
> 
> [PH-04]
> Pan, F and Hobbs, J. R. 2004. Time in OWL-S. In: Proceedings of the
> AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services, Stanford University,
> CA, pp. 29-36. http://www.isi.edu/~hobbs/time/pub/pan-hobbs-AAAI-

> SSS04.pdf
> 
> (Sorry for being picky here)
> 
> 
> 7. Typos (those I found):
> 
>   Errata: ":inXSDDateTime "1950-01-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp ;"
>   Corrige: ":inXSDDateTimeStamp "1950-01-
> 01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp ;"
> 
>   Errata: ":inXSDDateTime  "2001-05-
> 23T08:20:00+08:00"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp ;"
>   Corrige: ":inXSDDateTimeStamp  "2001-05-
> 23T08:20:00+08:00"^^xsd:dateTimeStamp ;"
> 
>   Errata: "Instance of of:"
>   Corrige: "Instance of:"
> 
>   Errata: "Expressed using ::DateTimeDescription the ::unitType - which
> determines the precision - is set to :unitYear, "
>   Corrige: "Expressed using :DateTimeDescription the :unitType - which
> determines the precision - is set to :unitYear, "
> 
> 
> 8. I made a check of the OWL Time spec with the W3C Markup Validation
> Service, and there are some syntax errors:
> 
> https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Ftim

> e%2Findex.html
> 
> 
> ----
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

> 
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any
> circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the
> European Commission.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 5:31 PM
> To: temporal@lists.opengeospatial.org;
> timeseriesml.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org;
> crs.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org; meteo.dwg@lists.opengeospatial.org;
> temporal-wkt-cal.swg@lists.opengeospatial.org;
> meteo.dwg@lists.opengeospatial.org
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; public-sdw-comments@w3.org;
> Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> Subject: W3C Draft OWL-Time ontology for final review.
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> The latest, and hopefully last, draft W3C Time Ontology in OWL is at
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ , after a lot of hard work by Simon Cox.
> 
> Please could you consider reviewing it and commenting in the next two
> weeks, preferably before Easter, though late comments may be addressed.
> 
> Please also pass it on to anyone you think might be interested and
> willing to comment.
> 
> In particular, please consider:
> 
> 1. Typos.
> 
> 2. Whether the background and explanatory text is clear, comprehensive
> and concise enough?
> 
> 3. The structured technical content of the ontology (ontological
> experience required!).
> 
> 4. Are the examples clear and sufficient?
> 
> 5. Any omissions and lacunae?
> 
> Please bear in mind that the purpose of the Ontology is to loosen the
> original 2006 Ontology which was too tightly coupled to the Gregorian
> calendar, including the ISO 8601 notation, and the contingent leap
> seconds. The new ontology should support more rigorous reasoning about
> similar calendars that, for example, ignore leap seconds or even leap
> days, as well as other temporal reference systems.
> 
> The Ontology could also form a basis for creating other ontologies for
> reasoning about drastically different calendars, such as the Mayan, or
> the months on Mars or days on Mercury.
> 
> Also, if you have any evidence of the use of the ontology, including
> its vocabulary terms, this will be very useful for establishing
> implementation evidence for the W3C processes.
> 
> Please reply to public-sdw-comments@w3.org .
> 
> Chris Little
> 
> Chris Little
> Co-Chair, OGC Meteorology & Oceanography Domain Working Group
> 
> IT Fellow - Operational Infrastructures
> Met Office  FitzRoy Road  Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
> Tel: +44(0)1392 886278  Fax: +44(0)1392 885681  Mobile: +44(0)7753
> 880514
> E-mail: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

> 
> I am normally at work Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday each week
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 19:09:21 UTC