W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > April 2018

Re: [dxwg] Temporal coverage [RTC]

From: Stijn Goedertier via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 07:43:58 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-383484132-1524469437-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Thanks, Andrea. I agree with your feedback that multiple, non-contiguous intervals would require several dcterms:temporal instances. This is probably based on the definition of [dcterms:PeriodOfTime](http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-PeriodOfTime), which reads: _An interval of time that is named or defined by its start and end dates._

I did not get from the use case that we want a more "flat" alternative, but in this case the Google ([schema:temporalCoverage](http://schema.org/temporalCoverage)) approach using the ISO 8601 time interval notation indeed makes sense. OWL Time does not seem to have have a property for representing time intervals as a literal like that. 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by stijngoedertier
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/85#issuecomment-383484132 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 23 April 2018 07:44:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 25 March 2019 10:33:22 UTC