- From: Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:27:33 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > The owl working group will be discussing datatypes and n-ary data > predicates today at the f2f. > > See: > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-16#Normative_datatypes > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_use_case > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/N-ary_Data_predicate_proposal > > If you have use cases, strong feelings, questions, etc. now is a good > time to voice them. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > thx for the reminder. two points arise for me: 1 - i do not see datetime on the agenda - is it embedded in something i missed or are we holding off because it needs more discussion 2 - if datetime is discussed, i would have trouble living with a solution that forced me to represent datetime as structured owl objects rather than xsd:datetime or something like a more granular xsd:datetime because of the sheer volume of datetime data my applications have. exemplar use case for datetime is: 2a. retrieve data with a start time of yymmdd for a duration of 10 days (optional time zone, default is ut, optional hours, minutes, seconds) 3 - i notice that comparison is embedded in the proposal. as long as i get something that lets me do comparisons and numerical ranges i can make due. exemplar use cases are: 3a. atmosphere above xxx feet and below yyy feet 3b. high geomagnetic activity = something with a kp index above 7
Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 14:28:12 UTC