RE: Changes for Time FPWD

The RDF is now fixed at the GitHub address (:Year reinstated) after a bit of a tangle merging ... 

Continuing down the list: 

> 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.

:intervalOverlaps is correct. It always has been. 

> @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


Dunno how that slipped through. Its correct in my Mendeley database. 

> In a future version, we'll need to add in a conformance statement 

What does one of those look like? 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:phila@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2016 2:57 AM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <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>
Subject: Changes for Time FPWD

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 23:51:15 UTC