RE: ISSUE-125: Update datatypes in OWL Time

Simon,

Thanks for the updated draft.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:08 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] wrote:

> OK - I've implemented this, though it does rather bloat the Instant class.
> Little gain in semantics, but does add convenience for implementers I guess.

Indeed it does!

> See http://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#topology Figure 1, and the documentation in
> Classes and Properties.

Looks good to me, so +1 from me for publishing as FPWD.

[...]

Best,

Lars

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 January, 2017 04:05
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-125: Update datatypes in OWL Time
> 
> Simon,
> 
> On Monday, January 23, 2017 2:10 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] wrote:
> 
> > I propose to resolve this issue by
> > (i)                 Cloning the property time:inXSDDateTime as
> > time:inXSDDateTimeStamp, using the new datatype that was built-in to
> > OWL2
> > (ii)               Deprecating time:inXSDDateTime in order to
> > encourage people to be careful about timezones, while protecting the legacy.
> >
> > OK?
> 
> I'm fine with those changes and also propose that we add at least time:inXSDDate and
> preferably time:inXSDgYear and time:inXSDgYearMonth, too,  so that those-of-us-that-
> don't-have-data-with-second-precision can have an easy way to express our temporal
> information.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lars

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 15:10:12 UTC