RE: "Year", "January" - RE: Time Ontology outstanding Issue 11

Chris,
I am trying to look into this, but I cannot find any sign of an issue-11 anywhere (well, apart from this, which I am sure is not it https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/11).

Can you point me to it please?

I am thinking to propose that instead of removing these "examples" another option would be to fill them out with more stuff. That could be a useful extension to owl:time from the original that would add considerable value for both interoperability and usability.  And, judicioulsly chosen, I think they would also be widely implemented already.

--Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2016 11:35 PM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: "Year", "January" - RE: Time Ontology outstanding Issue 11

Simon

Agreed.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 6:38 AM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; Little, Chris; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: "Year", "January" - RE: Time Ontology outstanding Issue 11

Looking more carefully, I found another example that should get the same treatment - "January", a subclassof DateTimeDescription. 

I propose restoring them both to the RDF representation, but marking them 'deprecated' with a note explaining that they were just specialization examples showing people how to flex their OWL Restriction muscles. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: SDWWG [mailto:sdwwg-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au@lists.opengeospatial.org] On Behalf Of Simon.Cox--- via SDWWG
Sent: Sunday, 18 December, 2016 23:22
To: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; sdwwg@lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Re: [SDWWG] Time Ontology outstanding Issue 11

Probably need to mark it 'deprecated' rather than removing it. W3C doesn't like to see anything actually removed from a namespace after publication. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, 17 December, 2016 03:47
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; sdwwg@lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Time Ontology outstanding Issue 11

Dear All,
 
Here is an issue in the latest draft of the Time Ontology http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ for discussion and resolution.

I am flagging, so what do people think of this?

Chris
----------------
5.14 Class: DurationDescription
Issue 11 [No link]
:Year was in the original OWL-Time, but was the only specialization of :DurationDescription - suggest moving it to an 'example' namespace
----------------

Chris Little
Co-Chair, OGC Meteorology & Oceanography Domain Working Group

IT Fellow - Operational Infrastructures
Met Office  FitzRoy Road  Exeter  Devon  EX1 3PB  United Kingdom
Tel: +44(0)1392 886278  Fax: +44(0)1392 885681  Mobile: +44(0)7753 880514
E-mail: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk


I am normally at work Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday each week

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 01:16:01 UTC