RE: question about 6 April 2017 draft of "Time Ontology in OWL"

Simon,

I should be in bed, but here goes. Apologies in advance for brain lapses. I am happy for this to be posted to public-sdw-comments@w3c.org or wherever.

Chris

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/160 Agree with Simon, but spell 'valus' as 'values'.

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/164 Agree with Simon. Suggest adding "The Allen algebra can act on temporal events where duration or temporal measure is not even defined."

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/166 Agree with Simon. The purpose of the ontology is not to duplicate XML Schema.

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/169 Agree with Simon again. As above the purpose of the ontology is not to duplicate a pre-existing XML schema.

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/172 Agree with Simon's re-wording. Perhaps add: "Some calendars, such as religious observationally-based ones, cannot be algorithmically calculated." 

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/177 Agreed that this issue is out of scope of this ontology.

HTH, Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:05 AM
> To: phila@w3.org; fd@w3.org
> Cc: eparsons@google.com; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au; Little, Chris
> Subject: RE: question about 6 April 2017 draft of "Time Ontology in
> OWL"
> 
> I'll let you deal with the AC then ...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 April, 2017 18:13
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; fd@w3.org
> Cc: eparsons@google.com; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au;
> chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
> Subject: Re: question about 6 April 2017 draft of "Time Ontology in
> OWL"
> 
> Thank you Simon  for taking such swift action. @Ed - looks like the
> next plenary has much to talk about :-)
> 
> And no, there's no extra context that I can bring to the table here. I
> really can't feel bad about not knowing about bunch of comments from 10
> years ago made in a WG in which none of us had any connection. Not so
> much falling through a crack as being lost in the abyss.
> 
> The existence of such comments could, perhaps, have been brought to our
> attention when the charter was under AC review, but no one did.
> 
> Let's deal with the comments, as Simon has done, and keep on.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 12/04/2017 08:25, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> > OK - I copied sections from the 2007 comments
> > https://www.w3.org/XML/2007/qts-timeont-comments into 20 separate
> > ISSUES - numbers  158-177
> >
> > I have processed most of these. I resolved and closed 11 issues
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/159

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/162

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/165

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/167

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/168

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/170

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/171

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/173

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/174

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/175

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/176

> >
> > 6 more I've addressed but marked 'Pending Review'
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/160

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/164

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/166

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/169

> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/172
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/177

> > as they could do with another pair of eyes to confirm I've resolved
> them OK.
> >
> > Three are outstanding:
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/158 requests a big
> overhaul of the introduction text and motivation, which I will get to
> in due course.
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/161 and
> > https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/163 each raise some
> relatively minor questions about timezones and leap seconds, so I've
> asked Chris to respond. I think they just need soothing words.
> >
> > So I think we are in pretty good shape after all.
> >
> > I've quite a few more comments stacked up, but this one had scared
> me, so I processed it first.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 April, 2017 02:11
> > To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; phila@w3.org
> > Cc: eparsons@google.com; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au;
> > chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
> > Subject: RE: question about 6 April 2017 draft of "Time Ontology in
> OWL"
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> >> From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 1:46 PM
> >>
> >> Hi Phil -
> >>
> >> Is this something we should have known about? Was this listed in our
> >> materials anywhere? Maybe it was mentioned at the kickoff (I wasn't
> >> present).
> >
> > Phil is away today. He might be able to provide additional context.
> I'm afraid I don't know. They have probably fallen through the cracks,
> which is very unfortunate given that these comments have been sitting
> in front of us (and even waiting for us) since 2007!
> >
> >
> >> I suspect we can deal with most of these questions, in part by
> >> strengthening the introduction and motivation, which is requested.
> >>
> >> I would suggest pointing out that
> >> (i) the focus of OWL-Time is primarily on the interval algebra, to
> >> support reasoning about temporal ordering
> >> (ii) since its original publication in 2006, OWL-Time has been
> widely
> >> used, so the revision has a primary goal to preserve the original
> >> elements with their original meaning
> >>  (iii) the main issue addressed in the revision concerns supporting
> >> temporal references systems other than Gregorian Calendar & Clock in
> >> a scalable fashion - but this is primarily by providing standard
> >> slots for additional information, without pre-filling except to
> >> support the original TRS for the original elements
> >> (iv) however, the variety of temporal reference systems is large,
> and
> >> their definitions are in some cases not precise enough to support
> all
> >> the fine- grained computations we might like, and furthermore
> >> prescribing those computations is beyond the scope of the ontology.
> >>
> >> But dealing with every point with the level of precision that CMSM
> is
> >> suggesting would probably not be possible in the time available.
> >
> > Leaving aside the fact that these comments should have been dealt
> with a long time ago, such comments are the raison d'être of calling
> for wide review, so they need to be addressed, one way or the other.
> The above list of points does not strike me as wrong, but I don't think
> they can serve as a generic answer to the 25 different comments that
> the referenced page contains. The group may dismiss all of them in the
> end, but there needs to be some rationale each time.
> >
> > It would be good if you could quickly go through the list of comments
> and flag:
> > 1. Comments that could have normative implications. These need to be
> addressed first (again, they may be dismissed with some rationale, e.g.
> to preserve backward compatibility with the 2006 draft).
> > 2. Editorial comments that would lead to a clearer spec and that the
> group should plan to address.
> > 3. Editorial comments that could be nice to have, but that the group
> might not address for lack of time 4. Editorial comments that you'd
> like to dismiss, for instance because similar comments have already
> been raised and addressed.
> > 5. Comments that are no longer relevant. It seems to me all comments
> > after 3.12 fall in that category. Down to 17 comments! :)
> >
> > I note editorial comments can be addressed after publication as
> Candidate Recommendation, giving you more time. What we need before
> publication as CR is:
> > - agreement within the group about the treatment that will be given
> to
> > each of these points
> > - some feedback from CMSM that he is fine with that treatment
> > - no pending normative update
> >
> > Strengthening the introduction and motivation could be done after
> publication as CR for instance.
> >
> >
> >> Also, is CMSM a bit cranky here, or is that just his comms style?
> >
> > Ah, I see a wonderfully crafted message and I cannot help but wonder
> > whether that means I am cranky too ;)
> >
> > Francois.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Simon
> >>
> >> Simon J D Cox
> >> Research Scientist
> >> Land and Water
> >> CSIRO
> >> E simon.cox@csiro.au T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
> >>    Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168
> >>    Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
> >>    Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
> >> people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
> >> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420
> >> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, 8 April 2017 1:45 AM
> >> To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
> >> Cc: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen; w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
> >> Subject: question about 6 April 2017 draft of "Time Ontology in OWL"
> >>
> >> Do the editors and the responsible working group believe that this
> >> draft of the document resolves the issues raised against its
> >> predecessor document by the then XML Query, XSL, and XQuery working
> >> groups in the document at [1] and transmitted to the working group
> >> responsible for that predecessor document in [2]?
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/XML/2007/qts-timeont-comments

> >> [2]
> >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-

> wg/2007Jun/0008.html
> >>
> >> If either the working group responsible then for the document, or
> the
> >> working group responsible now has already answered this question,
> e.g.
> >> in a response to the comments, please excuse this inquiry — I
> haven’t
> >> noticed any response, but perhaps I have just overlooked it.
> >>
> >> ********************************************
> >> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> >> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> >> cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
> >> http://www.blackmesatech.com

> >> ********************************************
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> Data Strategist, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/

> 
> http://philarcher.org

> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 23:34:57 UTC