RE: W3C Draft OWL-Time ontology for final review.

Hi Danh,

Thanks for this.

My first thought is that "RDF Class" is a typo and it should be "RDFS Class". "RDF" should appear for the Properties. There is no "RDF:Class". My second thought is the same!

I have no experience of OWL, or Turtle, so I assume owl:class is an inheriting subclass of rdfs:Class, but Simon or someone else will have to confirm or correct me.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Le Phuoc, Danh [mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de]
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 10:35 PM
> To: Little, Chris; Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org; public-sdw-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: W3C Draft OWL-Time ontology for final review.
> 
> Hi Chris and Simon,
> 
> I would like to thank you for a nice work. I’ve made a quick review on
> the content, I have following questions/comments:
> 
> In the document at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/, in each description
> table of  time:Instant, time:Interval, time:ProperInterval,
> time:TemporalEntity, time:TemporalPosition, time:TimePosition, the
> heading row you use RDF Class but the rest you use RDFS Class. I wonder
> if you have any particular intention for using either of them.
> 
> Besides, OWL-Time is introduced as an OWL-2 DL ontology, in the Turtle
> file at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/sdw/gh-

> pages/time/rdf/time.ttl, all the definitions use owl:Class and
> owl:ObjectProperty but there is no sign of using rdfs:Class, so, is
> there a reason for refering RDFS Class in the document? A long this
> line, I’m also curious about RDF Property.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Danh
> 
> On 06/04/2017, 17:30, "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>     Dear Colleagues,
> 
>     The latest, and hopefully last, draft W3C Time Ontology in OWL is
> at http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ , after a lot of hard work by Simon
> Cox.
> 
>     Please could you consider reviewing it and commenting in the next
> two weeks, preferably before Easter, though late comments may be
> addressed.
> 
>     Please also pass it on to anyone you think might be interested and
> willing to comment.
> 
>     In particular, please consider:
> 
>     1. Typos.
> 
>     2. Whether the background and explanatory text is clear,
> comprehensive and concise enough?
> 
>     3. The structured technical content of the ontology (ontological
> experience required!).
> 
>     4. Are the examples clear and sufficient?
> 
>     5. Any omissions and lacunae?
> 
>     Please bear in mind that the purpose of the Ontology is to loosen
> the original 2006 Ontology which was too tightly coupled to the
> Gregorian calendar, including the ISO 8601 notation, and the contingent
> leap seconds. The new ontology should support more rigorous reasoning
> about similar calendars that, for example, ignore leap seconds or even
> leap days, as well as other temporal reference systems.
> 
>     The Ontology could also form a basis for creating other ontologies
> for reasoning about drastically different calendars, such as the Mayan,
> or the months on Mars or days on Mercury.
> 
>     Also, if you have any evidence of the use of the ontology,
> including its vocabulary terms, this will be very useful for
> establishing implementation evidence for the W3C processes.
> 
>     Please reply to public-sdw-comments@w3.org .
> 
>     Chris Little
> 
>     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 Wednesday, 12 April 2017 18:34:12 UTC