Just to note that regarding the Google work we are aiming to just use standard Schema.org with nothing Google specific beyond the choice of idiom (graph shape / application profile etc.). The wider community periodically discusses the need for a clearer guidance on iso durations which are openended btw, it would be fantastic if dxwg could help progress that somehow... On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, 00:46 Stijn Goedertier via GitHub, <sysbot+gh@w3.org> wrote: > 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 08:43:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:28:22 UTC