- From: Feng Pan <pan@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:10:41 -0800 (PST)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Jerry Hobbs <hobbs@ISI.EDU>
Hi Jeremy, Thanks for your comments! > I am not sure here. It is not sufficient to merely add a warning. The use of > duration is a bad practice, and should not occur in any of our documents. > > I would strongly prefer that the time ontology simply does not use the > duration datatype. Of course, using the two replacement types needs some > explanation, but they should not be presented as an alternative to duration, > on some sort of equal footing, but more as the preferred practice; with the > use of duration being a non-practice. (the SHOULD NOT is a strong statement > in RDF Semantics, I have not seen any argument as to why this note should in > anyway overall, and choose to use duration) How about we remove the parts in the note that use xsd duration datatype, and just keep the properties that map to our own DurationDescription class? thanks, Feng
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 22:25:51 UTC