RE: Please review OWL-Time document

Thanks Lars -

1) Actually there is no domain or range for time:after, just the inverseOf relationship to time:before which does have them. 
Of course the domain and range is implied by the inverseOf relationship. 
But I'm not sure what the current recommended style is - in 2006 I guess domain and range were omitted if an inverseOf relationship was declared. 
But it requires a reasoner to understand this. Is there a general assumption that reasoning shall always be assumed? 

I had not intended to change this (though I had mistakenly added a domain and range for time:after in the ttl file, which I have now reverted). 
If the group thinks a change is merited, then I am happy to insert domains and ranges all round where they are already implied by inverseOf relationships. 

2) Processed. 

3)   Regarding ISSUE-125 - I agree that xsd:dateTimeStamp is preferable, but the problem is backward compatibility. 
If the rdfs:range of inXSDDateTime is changed from xsd:dateTime (which is still part of OWL2 btw) to xsd:dateTimeStamp, then what are the implications for existing data in which the timezone is omitted? 
Does it become 'invalid' in some way? 

Simon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de] 
Sent: Thursday, 12 January, 2017 07:43
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Please review OWL-Time document

Simon, all,

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 6:37 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] wrote:

> The Editors draft of the OWL-Time specification can be considered for 
> release as a second public working draft.
> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/
 
I use the time after today's super-short meeting to make some very minor comments on this very concise and informative document: cudos to the editors!

1)	time:before has domain and range time:TemporalEntity which time:after doesn't. I guess that time:after should have domain and range, too.

2)	There is a typo in the URI given in the OWL-2 reference [1]. The text is ok, but the href says http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/owl2-quick-reference/#Built-in_Datatypes . I think that should be http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-quick-reference/#Built-in_Datatypes

3)	Regarding ISSUE-125 and backward compatibility with OWL-1, there was a mail from Antoine Zimmermann where he said: "The standard Web Ontology Language is now OWL 2. Let us forget about OWL 1" [2]. So I think it should be safe to update the spec to use xsd:dateTimeStamp.

[1] https://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#OWL-2
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Nov/0069.html

Best,

Lars

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2017 21:39:50 UTC