usageDuration

[jlangkau]

Taken from usageControlObject.ttl

ids:usageDuration a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:label "usage duration"@en; rdfs:domain ids:UsageControlObject; rdfs:range xsd:duration ; rdfs:comment "Last modification date/time."@en ; .

when we have a look at

https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration

I think the usage in given OpbjectProperty isn't correct?!?

[sebbader]

Hallo @jlangkau,

can you provide more details why you think the property is incorrect? I see that the comment annotation is not helpful, that might have been a copy-paste error.

[sebbader]

Please see #333 for the update on the comment.

[jlangkau]

Sorry for fuzzyness! So:

xsd:duration

is a duration, defined by https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration.

The comment

rdfs:comment "Last modification date/time."@en ;

talks about a "last modification" and gives us a hint what the given type might be ("date/time"). And this doesn't fit - from my point of view. A duration itself describes an interval in ti's length and it will be find it's place in a given Time Reference System (TRS) havin at least a instant of beginning or end...

[jlangkau]

Closed, OK, but but still not understood by @jlangkau

[HaydarAk]

Hi @jlangkau

My bad, for linking the issue directly to the Pull Request. Merging the PR closed this ticket.

I reopend this issue for @sebbader and you, so that you can further discuss this.

This is the current description of the property. https://github.com/International-Data-Spaces-Association/InformationModel/blob/30ad797d47808c1335dc591d4be9befcd314f335/model/content/UsageControlObject.ttl#L70-L74

[JohannesLipp]

@lcomet Could you please evaluate if this was covered by our T60 application profile contributions? Thank you!

[lcomet]

Hi @JohannesLipp the property ids:usageDuration was not covered under the T60. The reason is that there is no reference to external properties for its definition except for the range which is xsd:duration, meaning that it was not redundant. As far as I understand this issue is related to a confusion between the range definition and the associated comment, which was modified under PR . If there is some other issue I am not seeing, just let me know and I can work on it.

[JohannesLipp]

@lcomet there are cases where we updated the rdfs:range from IDS-content to something from xsd, but we did not update from ObjectProperty to DatatypeProperty. Example:

Please use a regex like .*owl:ObjectProperty(.*\n){0,8}.* xsd: to search in all files for relevant places and change them to DatatypeProperty, if that applies. Please use the branch I just created for that (`333-fix-usage-duration), thank you!