- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:28:10 -0700
- To: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com>, Heiko Paulheim <heiko@informatik.uni-mannheim.de>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Bernd Opitz <opitz.bernd@gmail.com>
Simon, On Wed, 6/25/14, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote: [Reasoning about named calendar years in terms of intervals bounded by time points is painful, especially for years in the future. Leap seconds can be added with only about six months notice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second ). Leap seconds are a PITA. ] What possible use could Leap Seconds be if Time Series statistics (and Public Records) are compiled on a Quarterly basis ? It is a bit cynical to convolute typographical errors with semantics, but in fact that is what you are doing is you use something other than (1461 Days / 16) = Calendar Quarter. http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/gts/ and http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/gts/StratML-GTS.html --Gannon
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 17:31:40 UTC