RE: OWL-time suggestions

Hi Sefki –

Quick reply –

Concerning your comments 1) through 5) – all of these are all copied over directly from the original OWL-Time.

The intention was that we would try not make changes that are not backward compatible.
There are a number of ways of assessing compatibility, so the one I am using is that instances prepared according to the original ontology would have the same meaning under the revised ontology.
This means that all classes and properties should have the same names and also that we should be very careful in adjusting other axioms, such as domains and ranges of properties.

All the changes that you propose, while having some good logic behind them, would break this backward compatibility.
If we were to do this, then we would almost certainly have to move the whole ontology into a new namespace.

Concerning your comment 6) – yes, it looks like this is a Temporal Reference System issue. As I mentioned, the work in this area is incomplete – the only TRS type that is demonstrated is the hierarchical-ordinal system (geologic timescale). Chris Little will be taking the lead on the rest of this topic. Meanwhile, could you formalize your proposal into a concrete proposal?

Thanks for the feedback

Simon

From: s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:s.kolozali@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 16 June 2016 8:22 PM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: OWL-time suggestions



Hi Simon,

    I have had a chance to have a look at the work that you have presented on Tuesday night. Here are some of the things that caught my eye:
1) time:inside has got time:Interval as Domain and time:Instant as Range. Maybe the domain must be the interval but range must be a date “xsd:dateTime”? Otherwise, it may increase the number of triples we have in triples for real-time data.

2) time:ProperInterval: I haven’t quite understood the purpose of this class. It may need to be renamed or clarified.

3) I don’t think that it is necessary to use the word “interval” in every interval properties. For instance, time:intervalOverlaps can be replaced by “time:overlaps”, time:intervalMetBy can be replaced by “time;metBy”, time:intervalStarts can be replaced by “time:starts” and so on.

4) time:hasBeginning and time:hasEnd can be replaced by “startsAtDate” and endsAtDate.

5) hasDuration can be replaced by “duration”.

6) There can be also a place to link it to TimeLine Ontology (http://motools.sourceforge.net/timeline/timeline.html) for DiscreteTimeLine where a data stream represented in digital timeline. For instance, the 3rd second of a data stream on matlab or another software is not the same with the physical timeline, which is the actual date. Therefore, one cannot export the analysed data in the rdf format in digital timeline. It needs to be specified. I was thinking that maybe this link could be established from Temporal Reference Systems Class?

Cheers,

Sefki Kolozali
Research Fellow
Institute for Communication Systems (ICS), home of the 5G Innovation Centre
University of Surrey
Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1483 689490

E-mail: s.kolozali@s<mailto:s.kolozali@qmul.ac.uk>urrey.ac.uk<http://urrey.ac.uk>
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ics/<http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ccsr/>





On 15 Jun 2016, at 15:45, Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au<mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> wrote:

1)      The ed draft refers to an obsolete version of XML Schema – it should be  the 2012 one here https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/. This should be fixable before the meeting next week?

2)      Can Jerry Hobbs and Feng Pan be appropriately acknowledged in the acknowledgement section?

--Kerry