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

Re: looking for an event ontology/vocabulary

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:59:43 -0500
Cc: David Canos <davidcanos@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E23A973-1DB4-4AA9-8B50-EFEBD6ED966D@ihmc.us>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>

On Jul 29, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:

>>> The disjoint statement between agent and factor defines factors as
>>> something that doesn't have an active role in the event.
>> But are necessary for the event to take place? Or play a  
>> significant role in
>> the event, so that if they were not present, the event would have  
>> been
>> different? Or something?
> Sorry, missed that comment for some reason. In this ontology, events
> are "just" arbitrary classifications of space--time regions. Hence you
> can perfectly classify any such region ("I thought about RDF over the
> last ten years", "I was walking to the office from 8 to 9 this
> morning"). And yes, it is purposely loose.

Fine. I have no quarrel with this kind of looseness, let me quickly  
add. But it would have been great if the published documentation had  
said this up front, explicitly. I guess the moral is, being  
underspecified in this sense is fine, but you need to say that  
**explicitly** in the documentation. Lack of documentation does not  
make the concept automatically 'loose'. (It might just be poor  
documentation of a 'tight' concept. There are many examples out  


> y

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 22:00:24 UTC

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