- From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:07:05 +0200
- To: "Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
- Cc: "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
> 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. Ah ok I understand, thanks! As part of defining a RDF vocabulary I encountered a problem with unknown entities. Basically if you have: ex:interval1 time:end time:Unknown . ex:interval2 time:end time:Unknown . RDF logic says that ex:interval1 and ex:interval2 end at the same instant, which is probably not right. On the other hand this kind of pattern works better: ex:interval1 time:end [ time:after ex:year2020 ] . ex:interval2 time:end [ time:after ex:year2020 ] . that way RDF won't infer that the two instants are the same... What do you think? Best, -- Elie
Received on Monday, 20 July 2020 07:07:29 UTC