Response to ISSUE-182

From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)
Sent: Sunday, 16 April, 2017 20:06
To: 'p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk' <p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk>; chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk
Cc: phila@w3.org
Subject: RE: Wide review - help needed

And the editorial issues below resolved now ;-)
Thanks.

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 13 April, 2017 23:26
To: chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
Subject: Re: Wide review - help needed


done.

________________________________
From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>>
Sent: 13 April 2017 14:03
To: Barnaghi P Dr (Elec Electronic Eng)
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Subject: RE: Wide review - help needed

Payam,

Yes please! Please add to the wiki.

Chris

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 1:55 PM
To: Little, Chris
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Subject: Re: Wide review - help needed


Hi Chris,



Can you please also add this to the wiki- later on W3C will need to see the evidence and comments (or let me know if you would like me to do this).



Cheers,

Payam



________________________________
From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>>
Sent: 13 April 2017 13:45
To: Barnaghi P Dr (Elec Electronic Eng); mbe@ugr.es<mailto:mbe@ugr.es>
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>; Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Subject: RE: Wide review - help needed

Payam, Maria,

Thank you for the feedback and careful reading.
Typo1: Caption Figure 1: repeated word "model" Agreed. Well spotted.
Typo 2: In 4.1.2 Note: "... whose duration is are smaller..." Agreed. Better English than me!
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.

Agreed. The raw ontology has rdfs:comment "Position of a time instant expressed as a TimePosition"@en
And the document states "Definition: Position of an instant, expressed as a temporal coordinate or nominal value".

Also the raw ontology has rdfs:comment "Duration of a temporal entity, event or activity, or thing, expressed as a scaled value"@en ;
And the document states "Definition: Duration of a temporal entity, expressed as a scaled value or nominal value"
The latter definitions are preferred, but I need Simon to confirm.
Other comments: time:TemporalDuration and :Duration have the same rdf:label "Temporal Duration". This could lead to misinterpretations. This is already fixed
Abandoning all instants for just intervals has been considered, and papers published about this approach. It was considered to break too much backward compatibility with the 2006 version, and too many people expect instants as a fundamental concept.
Chris

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<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>  http://www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Met_Office.svg/140px-Met_Office.svg.png]<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>

Weather and climate change - Met Office<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/>
www.metoffice.gov.uk<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk>
Settings. Here you are able to personalise the Met office website to work specifically for your needs. Site-wide settings are available for units of measurement, ...



I am normally at work Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday each week

From: p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk<mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk> [mailto:p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:32 PM
To: mbe@ugr.es<mailto:mbe@ugr.es>
Cc: phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>; Little, Chris; Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto: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.