W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2005

Re: [ALL,OEP] Review of "Time Ontology in OWL" and "Time Zone Resource in OWL"

From: Feng Pan <pan@ISI.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Libby Miller <libby@asemantics.com>
cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, hobbs@ISI.EDU
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0510151708140.9964@nitro.isi.edu>

Hi Libby,

Thank you very much for your helpful review! Here are some thoughts on 
your comments.

> It
> would help in particular to emphasise the benefits of an ontology over,
> for example, an xml schema; or at least clarify the circumstances where
> advantages would occur. It would also be useful to show some examples
> which illustrate this ontology mapped to iCalendar, if only for the
> reason that iCalendar is very commonly used in PIM applications.

We have compared our representation with XML Schema datatype "duration" 
and "dateTime", and explained our advantages at the end of section 
"Duration Description" and "Calendar-Clock Description". Especially, in 
the "Calendar-Clock Description" section we presented one example to 
illustrate the differences and our advantages.

We will add some iCalendar examples to illustrate the mapping.

> Minor nits:
> It would be better for sections to be numbered to allow easier
> referencing.

Sections will be numbered in the next draft.

> References need filling in.

I don't quite understand this comment on references. Could you explain a 
little bit more?

> "Allen's temporal interval calculus" - I'm not familiar with this - I
> think a bit more explanation would be useful here, especially as the
> reference is not online.

We will add some explanation on Allen's interval calculus work.

> Language is a bit vague: "Probably seconds are not relative to the time
> zone."

We will change it to "Seconds are not relative to the time zone."

> More would be good (and more general, non-OWL-S usecases, unless the
> ontology is specific to that area).

Yes, the ontology is NOT specific to OWL-S. We will add more general 
examples (e.g., scheduling) with detailed explanations.

> [[
> In this example Instant, a subclass of TemporalEntity, would be a better
> class to use than TemporalEntity to describe CreditCardExpirationDate,
> because the expiration date is actually an instant -- the midnight, of
> the day the credit card expires. (This was already changed in the later
> release of OWL-S.)
> ]]
>
> The example should be updated to reflect this.

This will be updated.

> "Time Zone Resource in OWL"
>
> Overall
>
> It would be good for the authors to take a look at "Working with Time
> Zones"[6] which is a very clear description of the issues developers
> commonly run into here.

Many of the general issues (not too specific to XML Schema time zone 
offsets) mentioned in this note are already addressed here.

> "GMT" should probably be replaced with "UTC" throughout:
> [[
> Greenwich Mean Time is a widely used historical term, but one that has
> been used in several ways. Because of the ambiguity, its use is no
> longer recommended in technical contexts.
> ]][7]

Good to know! We will replace it and add this referece to the note.

> The authors might want to consider having a last updated property or
> similar to mitigate cases where daylight savings policies change.

Excellent point! We will add a last updated property to our daylight 
saving policy class.

> Minor nits:
> It would be better for sections to be numbered to allow easier
> referencing.

Sections will be numbered in the next draft.

Thanks very much again for your comments!

Feng
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2005 01:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:44 UTC