Interval vs Instant - model question from Maria Bermudez-Edo

A proposal regarding intervals vs instants model that came in by email during wide review.

ISSUE-184 created to record

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.



Best,

Payam



________________________________
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.

Best,

María.


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/>
w3c.github.io
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:

https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

Many thanks,
Payam



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.