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

Thanks Danh - 

I've fixed all these so the tables just show 'Class:' and 'Property:'. 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Le Phuoc, Danh [mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de] 
Sent: Friday, 7 April, 2017 07:35
To: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <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 Monday, 17 April 2017 04:48:44 UTC