FW: Wide review - help needed

This comment received during wide review was not circulated to the list.
I created ISSUE-181 so we can (retrospectively) organize the correspondence.

Also see ISSUE-158

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 April, 2017 00:12
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
Cc: phila@w3.org
Subject: Fw: Wide review - help needed


Hi Simon, Chris,



Please see below see review comments for the time ontology (from Stefan Bischof, Siemens).



Best,

Payam



________________________________
From: Bischof, Stefan <bischof.stefan@siemens.com<mailto:bischof.stefan@siemens.com>>
Sent: 10 April 2017 15:04
To: Barnaghi P Dr (Elec Electronic Eng)
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Wide review - help needed

Hi Payam,

I'll try to review on Thursday when I'm on the train. A few things after looking over it quickly:

I did not find references to these, solving some of the xsd:duration problems:

*         yearMonthDuration https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#yearMonthDuration

*         dayTimeDuration https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dayTimeDuration

Although quite old, this might be interesting https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/

The class time:Number is not ideal, although I don't have a better idea now.

In the motivation I would expect a few sentences why using the XSD datatypes for dates, times, and durations is not (good) enough.

Cheers,
Stefan