W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > January 2017

RE: Please review OWL-Time document

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:52:40 +0000
To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
CC: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3DAD8A5A545D7644A066C4F2E82072883E28BA0E@EXXCMPD1DAG4.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>

Belated Happy New Year. Hope you have avoided the ‘lurgy’ that is laying low most of Britain.

I have now read the 11 Jan Editor’s Draft. Thank you for the re-structuring  the content – it is much clearer to read and easier to find things.

I have some minor editorial comments that could be considered, as I am not sure what editorial processes W3C apply. Not very substantial, but with view to making the doc easier to read:

1.       Classes time:generalDay, time:generalMonth and time:generalYear all have informative notes that more or less replicate the text in the definition. I suggest deleting the notes (and perhaps highlighting the equivalent sentences in the definition, if easily done in the W3C document macros. Unless you have a specific audience that you wanted to address with an important point.

2.       Add to the title of A.2 Properties table “(ordered by domain)”. It was not obvious to me as I thought it alphabetical. Or is it meant to be, like the text?

3.       Start Annex A on a new page.

4.       Typo in definition of RDF Property inXSDDateTime: should be xsd:dateTime, not xsd:DateTime ?

I am not sure that I have anything constructive to say about Issues 125 / 126. When delving down through the definitions of the datetime built-in datatypes in XML Schema, there is all sorts of messes swept under the carpet, especially with Time Zones (basically everything has to be reduced to a canonical form i.e. UTC).  I think I still stand  by my comments about trying to dissuade people from overlaying duration calculations on RFC3339 TimeStamps.

HTH, Chris

From: Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 7:54 AM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Please review OWL-Time document

Thanks both, it's nice to have some alternative Christmas Reading !!

Merry Christmas !!


On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 at 05:38 <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.

A few issues outstanding are prominent in the text – big pink notes.

And this section (carried over from the 2006 draft) has not been properly reviewed:

Also – an annoying HTML/CSS issue – <h4> headings are not formatted consistently, some in blue, some in black, particularly where there is a sequence of them (mostly in chapter 4).
Somewhere along the line my HTML and the CSS are fighting, but I can’t figure out where.

Happy holidays all.

Simon & Chris

Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist
Environmental Informatics
CSIRO Land and Water<http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>

E simon.cox@csiro.au<mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> T +61 3 9545 2365<tel:+61%203%209545%202365> M +61 403 302 672<tel:+61%20403%20302%20672>
   Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
   Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
   Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168

The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


Ed Parsons FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501<tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207881%204501>
www.edparsons.com<http://www.edparsons.com/> @edparsons
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2017 16:53:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:28 UTC