RE: OWL-Time: i18n comments?

Not sure I agree. This ontology *accepts* the implicit intercalations in the Gregorian calendar (as they are inherited from ISO 8601 via XML Schema and OWL2), but does not really *deal with* them.

Simon

From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May, 2017 02:33
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; fd@w3.org
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: OWL-Time: i18n comments?

Simon,

Perhaps add one further sentence:

“This ontology only deals with the implicit intercalations in the Gregorian calendar.”  ?

Chris

From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:45 AM
To: Little, Chris; Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; fd@w3.org<mailto:fd@w3.org>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: RE: OWL-Time: i18n comments?

Para dropped in to non-normative section (after para 5 rather than 4)
________________________________
From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>>
Sent: Monday, 1 May 2017 10:15:28 PM
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton); fd@w3.org<mailto:fd@w3.org>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: RE: OWL-Time: i18n comments?

Simon,

I did write a paragraph to be added somewhere. Leap seconds made it, and attached is the Intercalation email with a paragraph is attached.

John Cowan did say that his comments were not about I18n, and were his personal ones.

Intercalation para here in case attachment gets mangled. I am at home and jumping through Office VPN hoops.

Chris

----
I propose to add this paragraph after the fourth in section 3.2:
"As astronomically based calendars try to fit inconvenient durations into a usuable regular system of counting cycles, 'intercalations' are often used to re-align the calendar's repeating patterns with astronomical events. These intercalations may be of different durations depending on the calendar, such as leap seconds, leap days, or even a group of days."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 2:23 AM
> To: fd@w3.org<mailto:fd@w3.org>; Little, Chris
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: OWL-Time: i18n comments?
>
> Thanks Francois -
>
> Yes, these matters were addressed. I've added a row at the top of the
> table here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Wide_Review#Disposition_of_issues_

> raised
>
> Chris - in the last email in the thread you wrote
>
> " I think we probably do need a paragraph about leap seconds and
> intercalation. I can write it."
>
> Is this present?
>
> Simon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, 28 April, 2017 23:43
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>;
> chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: OWL-Time: i18n comments?
>
> Simon, Chris,
>
> While preparing the transition request for the Time Ontology, I noticed
> that the group sought a review from the i18n group back in July 2016,
> which is great. John Cowan commented on the draft at that time:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-

> international/2016JulSep/0029.html
>
> Have these comments been addressed somehow? Or were they missed
> somehow? If so, could you look into them?
>
> I will close the loop with the i18n group in parallel.
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>