Re: ISSUE-142: January-December - classes or individuals

this looks sensible enough to me

note i i was looking for a model of how days, weeks, months, years may be
rolled up in a hierarchical dimension, but i think I'm happy with just
being able to declare the type of each level - and declare simple
skos:broader/narrower relationships between dimension components - and
leave it to additional properties in a more generalised vocabulary (not yet
available) to define the functions.

Its useful to be able to specify a month as a start or end of a period -
but perhaps the more general approach is to use the ISO 8601  time
microformat indicating precision level.

 i.e. we are not making it owl:Time's problem to define the relationship
between days, months, years (because it cant also handle weeks, years,
hours, days,weeks,months or other implementation choices about what rolled
up dimensions are available.)



On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 16:28 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> See github branch
>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/simon-time-individuals/
>
> and in particular
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/simon-time-individuals/time/rdf/time-gregorian.ttl
>
> for the individuals. Need someone with good OWL goggles to look at this,
> as the various options are a bit tangled up.
>
>
>
> Also need some guidance from the QB4ST team, else I’ll have to drop it.
>
>
>
> *From:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, 23 January, 2017 08:21
> *To:* rob@metalinkage.com.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org;
> kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
> *Subject:* [ExternalEmail] Issues concerning Year etc, and
> January-December
>
>
>
> I should have included the links to the issues:
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/141 which ends up “In order
> to move forward, we need to understand the actual requirements, which I
> think are from the QB4ST team (RobA, Kerry).”
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/142 which ends with a
> similar request.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *[…] *
>
>