- From: Andrea Perego via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:45:14 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
(coming back to this after quite a while...) @stijngoedertier said: > I did not get from the use case that we want a more "flat" alternative, but in this case the Google (schema: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. The problem here (as it is for DCAT-AP) is that schema.org terms and how they are used may change over time (and actually this has happened in this specific case), of course, without being bound to how they are used outside the schema.org community. So, the main point of this question is whether we should or not define specific properties in the DCAT namespace, so that we can ensure that their possible revision will take into account their actual implementation in the community using DCAT. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/85#issuecomment-457961545 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2019 22:45:15 UTC