W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > July 2020

RE: OWL-Time extensions for Era

From: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 14:19:13 +0000
To: Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com>
CC: "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CWXP265MB005394035AA0D9ABC64824ADA7780@CWXP265MB0053.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Hi Ron,

Hope you are well in these very interesting times.

I stand corrected! So how does the current ISO8601 support ‘now’? Does it use an ellipsis or hyphen or a keyword (‘now’ in English)?


From: Ronald Tse <tse@ribose.com>
Sent: 21 July 2020 14:03
To: Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
Cc: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>; public-sdwig@w3.org
Subject: Re: OWL-Time extensions for Era

Hi Chris, Simon,

Fortunately ISO 8601 still supports periods that start/end with now :-)

Regarding history on “midnight” — originally there was a NOTE for “midnight" to equate with “end of day”. Unfortunately, the ISO central secretariat thought “end of day" was “redundant” so the clause was deleted prior to publication. Despite complaints from the editors (Ray and I), it was not restored… It’s one of the issues that we plan to address in ISO/TC 154/WG 5.



Ronald Tse
Ribose Inc.

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.

On Jul 21, 2020, at 8:14 PM, Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk<mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>> wrote:

Hi Simon,

A few years ago (well, 1988, ?) ISO8601 used to allow the notation of intervals (which they call periods) that started or ended with 'now'. This option was removed in later versions of the standard.

At the time, lots of people (well, some programmers) were annoyed. Do you know why and how that decision was taken? I think it may be relevant to this discussion and perhaps indicates caution. I've copied Ron in case he knows the history.

Chris (now living in a temporal regime of seasons only with a free-running body clock ;-)

PS Recently, and rather less controversially, the term 'midnight' for time 00:00 UTC was also removed from ISO8601!

-----Original Message-----
From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
Sent: 21 July 2020 06:15
To: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu<mailto:elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>>
Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org<mailto:public-sdwig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: OWL-Time extensions for Era

If 'unknown' and 'now' are constructed as temporal positions, not instants, then you could go with

time:Indeterminate a time:TemporalPosition .
time:Now a time:TemporalPosition .

ex:interval1 a time:Interval ;
time:hasBeginning [ a time:Instant ;
time:inTemporalPosition time:Now ] ;
time:hasEnd [ a time:Instant ;
time:inTemporalPosition time:Indeterminate ] ;.
Etc. I think those two will do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu<mailto:elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>>
Sent: Monday, 20 July, 2020 17:07
To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org<mailto:public-sdwig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OWL-Time extensions for Era

I'm suggesting that four canonical individual time:Instants be
defined as
part of OWL-Time.

Their URIs can then be used as the limits of specific intervals (and
when required.

Ah ok I understand, thanks! As part of defining a RDF vocabulary I
encountered a problem with unknown entities. Basically if you have:

ex:interval1 time:end time:Unknown .
ex:interval2 time:end time:Unknown .

RDF logic says that ex:interval1 and ex:interval2 end at the same
instant, which is probably not right. On the other hand this kind of
pattern works

ex:interval1 time:end [ time:after ex:year2020 ] .
ex:interval2 time:end [ time:after ex:year2020 ] .

that way RDF won't infer that the two instants are the same...

What do you think?


Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2020 14:19:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:03 UTC