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

owl:Class is a subclass of rdfs:Class

> On Apr 12, 2017, at 14:33, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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 18:55:57 UTC