- From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 08:34:31 -0800
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Feng Pan and Jerry Hobbs,
Let's reflect on your coding example for a moment.
<time:Instant rdf:ID="departureDate">
<time:inCalendarClockDataType rdf:datatype="&xsd;dateTime">
2005-03-10</time:inCalendarClockDataType>
</time:Instant>
Will people really think a departure date is an "Instant"?
Will anyone have a clue what inCalendarClockDataType is?
Is this acceptable coding for the XML and RDF/A worlds?
Wouldn't DepartureDate be a class defined somewhere?
Isn't THIS coding infinitely better:
<xxx:Date rdf:ID="myDepartureDate" date='2005-03-10'/>
I urge you to take another crack at creating a time ontology that can be easilly
understood. One simply echoing academic research with little regard for
practice-minded communities, is short-sighted. For instance, you say that Year,
CalendarYear, January, and Sunday can all be defined as subclasses ..... yet you
don't do it -- why not? Surely you can appreciate that definition of THESE TERMS
is both critical and mandatory.
John McClure
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:33:07 UTC