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

Thank you Michael for drawing attention to these comments. 
Indeed they had been missed during the main work. 

However, we think we have addressed all the issues. 
In particular, note that the document has been completely re-written, with a more formal and complete structure compared with the 2006 version. 

I pulled out the various items into a series of formal issues in the tracker as follows: 

https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/158 ISSUE-158: Introduction and goals 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/159 ISSUE-159: Notation 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/160 ISSUE-160: Documentation 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/161 ISSUE-161: Possible ambiguity
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/162 ISSUE-162: Which calendar? 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/163 ISSUE-163: Which time? Leap seconds? 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/164 ISSUE-164: Section 4, Topological Temporal Relations
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/165 ISSUE-165: Section 5, Duration Description 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/166 ISSUE-166: Section 5, Duration Description
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/167 ISSUE-167: Section 6 “Time Zones” 1st paragraph:
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/168 ISSUE-168: Section 7 "DateTime Description" 1st paragraph: 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/169 ISSUE-169: Section 7, DateTime Description 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/170 ISSUE-170: Section 7, DateTime Description 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/171 ISSUE-171: Section 7 DateTime Description 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/172 ISSUE-172: Information content (section 7) 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/173 ISSUE-173: Week numbering (Section 7)
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/174 ISSUE-174: Gregorian and Julian calendars (Section 7 DateTime Description)
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/175 ISSUE-175: Example (section 8.2)
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/176 ISSUE-176: Appendix A, Summary of Classes and Properties in the Time Ontology 
https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/177 ISSUE-177: Appendix B, Time Zone Resource in OWL 

The disposition of each comments is indicated, in a note in most cases, with some additional information in the attached mails. 

Hope this satisfies. 

Simon Cox

-----Original Message-----
From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 8 April, 2017 01:46
To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
Cc: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>; 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

********************************************

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 02:42:01 UTC