W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2009

Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:58:01 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0907291358vc2e45dfm9f04cdd67b071ff4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, David Canos <davidcanos@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
2009/7/29 Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>:

> Indeed. However, it suffers from one glaring defect, which may simply be a
> problem of documentation: i does not explain its terms.

Documentation is a pretty common problem...

 In particular, it
> refers to a 'factor' of an event, without anywhere saying anything, either
> in the axioms or in the documentation, to explain what this strange term is
> supposed to mean. It is not normal English usage to refer to a 'factor' of
> an event, so ordinary English usage is no guide.

Googling "define: factor" gives me a bunch of definitions, the first
two of which are:

[[
# anything that contributes causally to a result; "a number of factors
determined the outcome"
# component: an abstract part of something; "jealousy was a component
of his character"; "two constituents of a musical composition are
melody and harmony"; "the grammatical elements of a sentence"; "a key
factor in her success"; "humor: an effective ingredient of a speech"
]]

Either of which could be applicable to an event: something can cause
an event; something can be a part of an event. Significantly different
IMHO.

So I'd suggest that the problem isn't lack of a human language
definition...it's having too many.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 20:58:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:44 UTC