Editorial comments from Maria Bermudez-Edo

Some editorial comments and inconsistency nits found.
Using ISSUE-182 to keep a record of these

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 13 April, 2017 21:32
To: mbe@ugr.es
Cc: phila@w3.org; chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Subject: Re: Wide review - help needed

Hi Maria,

Brilliant. Thank you very much.

I have CC'd, Chris and Simon who are the editors of this report.



From: Maria Bermudez-Edo <mbe@ugr.es<mailto:mbe@ugr.es>>
Sent: 13 April 2017 12:07
To: Barnaghi P Dr (Elec Electronic Eng)
Cc: mbe@ugr.es<mailto:mbe@ugr.es>; phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Wide review - help needed

Hi Payam,

I have performed a quick review of the ontology and here (below) are my thoughts. Hope that helps. Let me know if I need to send them to any list, as Kerry suggested.



Comments to the time ontology (link: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/sdw/gh-pages/time/rdf/time.ttl and the web page: http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/.
Time Ontology in OWL - w3c.github.io<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/>
The OWL-Time ontology is an OWL-2 DL ontology of temporal concepts, for describing the temporal properties of resources in the world or described in Web pages.


The extension of the time ontology with different temporal reference systems is a great idea. The ontology is well thought and I believe it will be very useful.

I found a couple of typos and I have some thoughts about the structure:

Typo1: Caption Figure 1: repeated word "model"
Typo 2: In 4.1.2 Note: "... whose duration is are smaller..."
Typo 3: There are some mismatches between the ontology and the web page: time:inTimePosition and time:hasDuration: The definitions (rdfs:comment) are not exactly the same in the ontology and the web.
Other comments: time:TemporalDuration and :Duration have the same rdf:label "Temporal Duration". This could lead to misinterpretations.

My thoughts: If the idea is that time intervals are more general cases than time instants, why not explicitly make instants a subclass of time intervals? (or even forget about instants) and keep the ontology simpler. In that case "proper interval" will be redundant. I suppose is for compatibility reasons with previous versions, but I am of the opinion that if the ontology is simpler it has more options to be adopted and extendedly used.

El 6/4/17 a las 21:12, p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> escribió:
Hi Maria,

The W3C working group on spatial data on the Web has extended and revised the time ontology. At this stage we need some quick reviews of the ontology.

I think you have also used it in some of the ontologies that you have developed.

I know you are very busy but can you please kindly review the ontology and let us know if you have any comments?

Here is the link:


Many thanks,

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 03:10:41 UTC