RE: OWL-Time extensions for Era

I'm suggesting that four canonical individual time:Instants be defined as part of OWL-Time. 
Their URIs can then be used as the limits of specific intervals (and eras) when required. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
> Sent: Monday, 20 July, 2020 16:29
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; public-sdwig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: OWL-Time extensions for Era
> 
> > 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 06:42:50 UTC