W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdwig@w3.org > July 2020

Re: OWL-Time extensions for Era

From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 08:29:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CANfi1JiKXngun447pCsrF5zqTkt_KaYeuH8-AGAc77vkgaYxDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
> ISO 19108 defines four 'indeterminate values' for temporal position.
> - 'now' - which corresponds with the time it is de-referenced

I wonder if that would play well with RDF... it seems it would make
some strange inference

> - 'after T1' - so if T1="now" then it says that we don't know when it is but it is later than now
> - 'before T1' - so if T1="now" then it says that we don't know when it is but it is earlier than now

How would these differ from time:before and time:after?

> - 'unknown' - we don't know what the relationship between it and any other instant is
>
> Perhaps we should add these to OWL-Time to support your use-cases.

I'm not really sure how I would use these... Do you mean I should say
something like "the Common Era ends at an undetermined point in the
future after now"? Well, originally I was against this idea as I don't
think eras have ends at all (not even in the future), but now I'm
starting to think that it doesn't really matter, I could just use a
time:Interval and not have any time:hasEnd property... would that
work?

Thanks,
-- 
Elie
Received on Monday, 20 July 2020 06:29:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:03 UTC