Bart,
As we can have fractions of a second, why do we need to raise an issue about adding the complications of fragments from another scheme? Or adding milliseconds, but not centidays, megayears, etc.
Would you be happy to close the issue?
Or write a brief example?
Chris
From: Bart van Leeuwen [mailto:bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:12 PM
To: Christoph, Pascal
Cc: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time
Hi,
I had exactly the same observation as Pascal, including the same revelation that xsd:decimal actually allows fractions.
This was also my comment on a earlier request for review [1]
I've created ISSUE-157 to add a example with fragments to the specification
[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Dec/0196.html
Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen
[cid:_2_D93F5CB4D93F5A2C004DFA27C12580FE]
twitter: @semanticfire
tel. +31(0)6-53182997
Netage B.V.
http://netage.nl<http://netage.nl/>
Esdoornstraat 3
3461ER Linschoten
The Netherlands
[cid:_2_D96B2B7CD93F6ECC004DFA27C12580FE]
-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph, Pascal [mailto:christoph@hbz-nrw.de]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:35 AM
To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time
Ah - uh.
I see now that 'xsd:decimal' already allows exactly for the fractions of a second! Duh!
pascal
From: "Christoph, Pascal" <christoph@hbz-nrw.de<mailto:christoph@hbz-nrw.de>>
To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-comments@w3.org>
Date: 07-04-2017 12:24
Subject: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time
________________________________
Hello *,
what's the smallest duration of time one can specifiy with the proposed time
ontology? I wonder if it's really a full "second"? (Couldn't find anything
smaller but may have missed it).
Analog to spatial ontology, where you can define very (indefinitely?) small
spatial dimensions, this should be also possible within the time ontology.
If you would allow 'https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#nt-seFrag' (instead of
xsd:decimal) as datatype for time:second you wouldn't even need tons of new
properties to be able to be arbitrarily precise.
If it's too nice for one to always assume decimal numbers when hitting
time:second I would propose one new time:TemporalUnit property (say:
time:secondFrag) which would suffice to define every time(t), where "t < 1s".
pascal
[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Bart van Leeuwen/netage]
