- From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:00:50 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@stijngoedertier said: > As suggested in the use case Modeling temporal coverage [ID27], owl:time can be used. Would the below example be a correct representation of a coverage for the year 2016 and 2018? As mentioned in [the relevant use case (UC27)](https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/#ID27): > the only relevant example provided in [VOCAB-DCAT] makes use of a URI operated by reference.data.gov.uk, denoting a time interval modeled by using [OWL-TIME]. Such sophisticated representation could be relevant for some use cases, but it is quite cumbersome when the requirement is to specify simply a start / end date, and it makes it difficult to use temporal coverage as a filtering mechanism during the discovery phase. So, the use case was about defining a more "flat" alternative (which could be nonetheless mapped to the OWL-Time representation), noting that DCAT does not provide guidance, and the current practice (defined in ADMS, and followed by DCAT-AP and related extensions) is to use `schema:startDate` and `schema:endDate`. An additional note about your example, @stijngoedertier : you have specified a `dct:PeriodOfTime` including multiple, non-contiguous intervals. Although this may be possible in OWL-Time, using this approach to specify multiple intervals may be not fit for the most common DCAT use cases, where the presence of multiple temporal coverages is typically specified with multiple instances of `dct:temporal`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/85#issuecomment-382879314 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2018 21:00:53 UTC