RE: ISSUE-125: Update datatypes in OWL Time

Simon, Lars,

Thanks for this. I agree with the update, and I think the text reads rather well!

I will not be available for the W3C SDW WG Plenary, so Simon, please be my proxy. I know this is a OGC process, and not sure whether it is allowed in W3C... Happy for the document to be published as a WD for Public Comment.

However, minor typos: 

1. Should 'xsd:gYearMonth' and 'xsd:decimal' be active hyperlinks? On my version everything else resolves except these two. Presumably to https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#gYearMonth and https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal rather than the xmlschema-1 document.

2. The description of Issue 65 has "Else predicates with similar names could be provided for linking to other entities." I suggest should read "Otherwise predicates with similar names could be provided for linking to other entities."

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:09 PM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: 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 16:39:10 UTC