Re: FW: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time

Chris,

As mentioned in my earlier post fractions of seconds is something that is 
very likely to happen if you use e.g. sensor data, which happens to be 
another subject for our WG.
Also using standard database functions to extract the xsd:datetime from 
timestamp fields will always generate fractions for seconds.
If we want to publish (spatial ) data on the web, maintaining the 
precision is vital, 2 readers now had the initial conclusion that this is 
not possible with the Time Ontology only after reading the spec in full 
detail they concluded that the xsd:decimal allows fractions and thus 
support fractions for seconds.

Therefore I think adding an example with a more precise time serves a 
purpose which is beyond theoretical, where centidays certainly is.

I'll try to find some time to create a example

Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen


twitter: @semanticfire
tel. +31(0)6-53182997
Netage B.V.
http://netage.nl
Esdoornstraat 3
3461ER Linschoten
The Netherlands




From:   "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
To:     "bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl" <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>
Cc:     "public-sdw-comments@w3.org" <public-sdw-comments@w3.org>, 
"christoph@hbz-nrw.de" <christoph@hbz-nrw.de>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" 
<Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date:   13-04-2017 01:02
Subject:        FW: Time Ontology: Smallest possible increment-of-time



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 


twitter: @semanticfire 
tel. +31(0)6-53182997 
Netage B.V.
http://netage.nl 
Esdoornstraat 3 
3461ER Linschoten 
The Netherlands 

-----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> 
To:        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]