RE: Comments on Time Ontology in OWL

Stijn,

The Semantic Web Best Practices working group has ended, though this mailing list still exists.  You might check with the Semantic Web Interest Group:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Stijn
> "Adhemar" Vandamme
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:52 AM
> To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on Time Ontology in OWL
>
>
> All,
>
> The last version of "Time Ontology in OWL" at [0] is the W3C Working
> Draft Wednesday 27 September 2006.
>
> I wanted to make a few comments. For examples, see below.
> However, by looking a little further, I found that the
> comments I wanted
> to make (ant a lot more others) are already raised at [1]
> which is dated
> Tuesday 17 April 2007, revised Thursday 19 April 2007.
>
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen posted these comments to this list on Wednesday
> 20 June 2007 [2].
> On Wednesday 4 July 2007, Jerry Hobbs replied [3]:
>
>  > Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the OWL-Time
>  > ontology. Your observations deserve a detailed response. However,
>  > project deadlines and travel schedules preclude that right now.
>  > I will get back to you with a full reply in August.
>
> I'm left with the following questions, I hope someone can answer me:
>
> Has there ever been a reply to all these comments [1]?
> If so, where can I find it?
> Is there currently still any activity on the Time Ontology?
>
> Regards,
> Stijn "Adhemar" Vandamme
>
>
> References:
>
> [0] Time Ontology in OWL - W3C Working Draft
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/>
> [1] Notes on Time Ontology
> <http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/qts-timeont-comments>
> [2] Comments on Time Ontology document
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2007Jun/0008.html>
> [3] Re: comments on Time Ontology document
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2007Jul/0000.html>
> [4] Inter Gravissimas - definition of (the leap year rules of) the
> Gregorian calendar
> <http://www.bluewaterarts.com/calendar/NewInterGravissimas.htm>
> [5] ISO 8601:2004(E) - Data elements and interchange formats -
> Information interchange - Representation of dates and times
> <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_
> E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199>
> [6] The world time zone instance file in OWL
> <http://www.w3.org/2006/timezone-world>
> [7] Sources for Time Zone and Daylight Saving Time Data - the Olson tz
> zoneinfo database <http://www.twinsun.com/tz/tz-link.htm>
>
>
> My comments (examples):
>
> [a] The document does not specify Gregorian calendar [4] is
> used (which
> seems likely) and does not specify whether that same calendar is used
> proleptically (i.e. for Gregorian calendar: prior to Friday 15 October
> 1582 (or Thursday 14 September 1752; or...))
> [b] The document refers to GMT without specifying what the actual used
> system of time is: UTC, UT0, UT1, TAI, mean solar time, Terrestrial
> Time, ...) Since UTC is not specifically mentioned, it is not clear
> whether leap seconds can be used and how they are treated.
> [c] Sunday 1 January 2006 (used notation is 01/01/2006, which
> is not per
> ISO 8601 [5]) is claimed to be in the first week of the year.
> According
> to what week numbering system? ISO 8601 [5] point 2.2.10
> claims differently.
> [d] The world time zone instance file [6] is not complete.
> There exists
> a more exhaustive collaborative compilation project that
> attempts to to
> record historical time zones and all civil changes since
> 1970: the Olson
> tz zoneinfo database [7].
> [e] The boolean observesDaylightSavingsTime is time-dependent.
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 02:16:17 UTC