- From: Simon Cox via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 04:48:42 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Thank you for your comments @mdbellis First I should note that OWL-Time is not currently under consideration for revision, so even if we agreed that they were warranted, I'm unclear if any changes can be made at this point. My understanding of W3C processes are incomplete however. On to the substantive issue: when the SDWWG converted OWL-Time from a Draft (2006) to a Recommendation (2017), a constraint was that it should be backward compatible as much as possible. This unfortunately meant that we had to retain many and varied ways to express temporal position, as well as the temporal relations (the Allen calculus). Backward compatibility is assessed at the instance level - instances of OWL-Time-2006 should be allowed by the 2017 version of the Ontology. So while [:inXSDDateTimeStamp](https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:inXSDDateTimeStamp) added, and [:inXSDDateTime](https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:inXSDDateTime) deprecated, the deprecation is only an annotation, and the property was not deleted - see note at https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#x2017-version. Nevertheless, testing was cursory. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and no-one pushed back, so it stayed. With hindsight I'm inclined to agree with you that it was a mistake. In hindsight also I would like to have separated the topological parts of OWL-Time (i.e. the temporal relations*) from the positional parts (i.e. all the various ways that temporal position can be expressed). This could have allowed OWL-Time to be formulated as a set of profiles suitable for different applications. For example, while geological and archeological applications can use the same temporal relations, the way that time position in those application is expressed is very different to how it is in transaction records or itineraries. Each application profile should be able to constrain the ways that temporal position is expressed to the appropriate datatypes - we don't need timezones for geological dates! *(It is the relations that are really the interesting part of OWL-Time, as also shown by the subsequent [Extensions to the OWL-Time Ontology - entity relations](https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-owl-time-rel/) note.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by dr-shorthair Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1435#issuecomment-1744205254 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 3 October 2023 04:48:44 UTC