- From: Alex Nelson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:08:35 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Thank you for the reply, @dr-shorthair . Here is what I would suggest, after having tinkered with workarounds: * In the non-normative alignment graph, the property chain axioms should probably be dropped, if they would lead one into a deprecated property. * In the examples section (5) in the OWL-Time document, it would be beneficial to have an example of how to "upgrade" `xsd:dateTime` data to arrive at `time:Instant`s using `time:inXSDDateTimeStamp`, if this is technically possible in only OWL-Time. I have a short loop, where I start out thinking "It's gotta be doable; it's gotta involve `time:timeZone`, I must have missed something;" stepping back to that property's domain `time:GeneralDateTimeDescription`; and going back to start with "I guess not" on not seeing an `xsd:dateTime`-valued property, repeating after a few months. If there *is* a path to follow through purely OWL-Time classes and properties, that would be good to know; if timezone assignment *must* be handled with some other programming language (including SPARQL), that would also be good to know. * Out of scope of OWL-Time, updates to PROV-O could be beneficial for this alignment issue. An update could allow those timestamp properties to have a union-range of `xsd:dateTime` or `xsd:dateTimeStamp`. Due to scope this is mostly an aside, but do you happen know: is this GitHub Issue tracker (`w3c/sdw`) where issues for PROV-O should be filed? I have some unrelated technical issues I'd like to report. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ajnelson-nist Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1421#issuecomment-1549862013 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2023 15:08:37 UTC