Response to ISSUE-181

From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)
Sent: Monday, 17 April, 2017 15:49
To: 'Little, Chris' <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk
Cc: phila@w3.org
Subject: RE: Wide review - help needed

Thanks Payam, Chris –

I suggest

(i)                 Adding time:hasXSDDuration with rdfs:domain time:TemporalEntity and rdfs:range xsd:duration

(ii)               Expanding the paragraph at the top of Section 3.2 to also mention this.

I guess the goal is to enable users who don’t need any more than the XSD types to use them, sensibly. We inherited the time:inXSDDateTime (etc.) properties on time:Instant from the 2006 edition already, so it would be perverse to exclude xsd:duration. I wonder why Hobbs and Pan didn’t? However, also note that xsd:duration is not one of the OWL2 built-ins, though we are already breaking that rule with xsd:gYear etc. (inherited from the 2006 version).

The general answer to Stephan’s question is the background one, that the primary goal of the revision was to not restrict the temporal reference system in use to only Gregorian, but we recognize that Gregorian is likely to be the most used, so we hold our nose and nod some sub-optimal features through because we know people will be looking for them.

Simon

From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 13 April, 2017 04:02
To: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Wide review - help needed

Hi Payam, Simon,


I a   I am not sure whether the durations mentioned (yearMonthDuration, dayTimeDuration) solve the right problems. I need to delve deeper, but they seem tied to the Gregorian calendar minus leap seconds, and I am not sure that they address durations in times encompassing different transitions from the Julian to Gregorian calendars (multifarious dates between 1588 and 1923).



I       I think that the dates selected for testing durations (1696 and 1903) are related to the Metonic cycle for calculating the days of the week in any given year.


The new XSD durations certainly do not help with other calendars, such as Mayan or Martian.



M   Also, my naïve interpretation of the regular expressions is that lexical values like P1Y13M (=P25M =P2Y1M) are allowed. I am not sure whether that this is good or bad.



P     Perhaps the issue of “why using the XSD datatypes for dates, times, and durations is not (good) enough” can be addressed by adding one sentence to end of Section 3.2:



“      “For example, ISO8601 style notation is often used, but ignoring leap seconds, which are explicitly mandated by the international standard, or a schema is defined in which date strings like 2017-99-99 validate correctly.”



C       Chris



    PS apologies but my  left hand  margins have gone peculiar.

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 3:12 PM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; Little, Chris
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto: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

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 11:16 AM
To: Bischof, Stefan (RC-AT TP AM 3)
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Wide review - help needed


Hi Stefan,



An overall review and if you have any specific comment or questions regarding any of the entities or any part of the documentation.

Something that could help the editors to improve it (and can be done in the remaining 10 days or so) or something that can reassure them this has been a step in the right direction.



If you can do this within next week, it would be great. Then the reviewers have a few days to respond and/or update the document if needed.



Thanks for your help.



Best,

Payam



________________________________
From: Bischof, Stefan <bischof.stefan@siemens.com<mailto:bischof.stefan@siemens.com>>
Sent: 07 April 2017 10:02
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 have a look, as you know best time is a scarce resource these days :(. Until when do you need it? Anything in particular you want me to look for?

Stefan

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:16 PM
To: Bischof, Stefan (RC-AT TP AM 3)
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>
Subject: Fwd: Wide review - help needed

Hi Stefan,

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 might have used it in some of the ontologies that you have worked on.

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/

Time Ontology in OWL - World Wide Web Consortium<https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time>
www.w3.org<http://www.w3.org>
Abstract. 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.



Many thanks,
Payam




Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.