On the question of daylight savings time ..
The spec supports the capability to indicate number of hours before or after UTC. We believe that makes an indication of daylight savings time un-necessary.
From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dalziel - crashposition [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2017 5:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [DATETIME] DATETIME Digest - 12 Mar 2017 to 7 Apr 2017 (#2017-8)
4.1.2 Date-time interval
- The example is duplicated. Remove one instance of "For example, May 8 can be expressed as a :DateTimeDescription, but the interval from 1:30pm, May 8, to 1:30pm, May 9, cannot. Both have a duration of a day."
Also, I don’t see any mention of Daylight Saving Time. Seems an odd omission.
On 8 April 2017 at 05:00:10, DATETIME automatic digest system ([log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>) wrote:
There is 1 message totaling 41 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. W3C Time Ontology in OWL: Call for Wide Review
The W3C Spatial Data on the Web Working Group has published what hopefully will be the last draft of the "Time Ontology in OWL" specification: https://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/
OWL-Time is an OWL-2 DL ontology of temporal concepts, for describing the temporal properties of resources in the world or described in Web pages. The ontology provides a vocabulary for expressing facts about topological relations among instants and intervals, together with information about durations, and about temporal position including date-time information. Time positions and durations may be expressed using either the conventional (Gregorian) calendar and clock, or using another temporal reference system such as Unix-time, geologic time or different calendars.
The group intends to request transition to Candidate Recommendation before end of April, and is thus actively looking for feedback on the specification by then. Please consider in particular:
2. Whether the background and explanatory text is clear, comprehensive and concise enough?
3. The structured technical content of the ontology (ontological experience required!).
4. Are the examples clear and sufficient?
5. Any omissions and lacunae?
A summary of changes from previous versions is available in the spec:
Please submit any comments to [log in to unmask] .
*** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: +49 69 1525-1752
Telefax: +49 69 1525-1799
mailto:[log in to unmask]