W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > July 2016

Changes for Time FPWD

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 17:56:46 +0100
To: Simon Cox <simon.cox@csiro.au>, "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Ghislain Atemezing <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>
Message-ID: <eee114c1-5377-c72d-0668-15267b1dcfab@w3.org>
Simon, Chris,

As you'll have seen, I've put the request in place to publish the Time 
ontology tomorrow. It's in place at 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-owl-time-20160712/. I've made various 
changes, some trivial, some more meaningful.

First and foremost, we needed to address the issue raised by Ghislain 
concerning the namespace file at http://www.w3.org/2006/time. We will 
that namespace to remain and to dereference to various serialisations 
(RDF/XML, Turtle and, I hope, with a JSON-LD context file).

The rules on deleting terms are as follows:

1. Don't.

2. Terms may be deprecated.

3. If you want to change the semantics of a term: don't. Mint a new one, 
deprecate the old one.

4. If you want to clarify an existing definition: please do.

I added a note to the abstract to this effect
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#abstract

Other issues
============

Please confirm that
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-owl-time-20160712/#time:intervalOverlaps

is correct. There was some confusion around whether it should be 
time:intervalOverlaps or time:Overlaps.

@simon - one of your DOIs was a 404. I can't tell you how happy that 
made me https://twitter.com/philarcher1/status/752531655785611264

After intensive research (ahem, Google), I found 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12145-014-0170-6

Correct?

I have also added the link to the previous version and a diff to the top 
matter.

I have re-done the references using ReSpec's in-built system. All W3C 
specs, RFCs and more can all be referenced without having to do things 
manually. So to refer to RFC2445 you just write [[RFC2445]].

In a future version, we'll need to add in a conformance statement and 
flag the sections that are not normative. Again, ReSpec takes care of a 
lot of this (section class="informative"> for example). But that can wait.

I made most of my changes before taking the snapshot so they should be 
easy to use in your future editing work.

Cheers

Phil.

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 16:55:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC