- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:35:04 +0000
- To: Rob Warren <warren@muninn-project.org>, public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi Rob, Thanks for the public feedback on Org, which we've noted. Thanks especially for your comments on the use of OWL Time. Best wishes, Dave On 12/11/13 18:28, Rob Warren wrote: > David, > > I plan to replace a number of my own homegrown organization ontology constructs with the organization ontology. I really appreciate the binary and n'ary relationships to deal with relationships at different levels of granularity. > > I'd also like to support the use of the Time Ontology because of its support for odd time periods that everyone can relate to but which standardize poorly to the calendar. A typical example is the financial year of a corporation which will differ in actual calendar dates across corporations. However, people are still comfortable referencing third quarter, 2012 or the 2012 financial year without knowing the underlying calendar dates. > > It has proven to be particularly useful in dealing with time periods that are poorly defined, be it with missing or invalid information. The use of the time ontology, as opposed to a data type, enables me to separate the label of the period (eg: February 31) with the actual date (somewhere between February / March). The other example is someone who joins the organization in 2012. When in 2012 is ambiguous, but there currently no datatype that can record this properly besides Time Owl. > > best, > rhw > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 08:35:35 UTC