RE: OWL-Time extensions for Era

If 'unknown' and 'now' are constructed as temporal positions, not instants, then you could go with 

```turtle
time:Indeterminate a time:TemporalPosition . 
time:Now a time:TemporalPosition .

ex:interval1 a time:Interval ;
 time:hasBeginning [ a time:Instant ;
  time:inTemporalPosition time:Now ] ;
 time:hasEnd [ a time:Instant ; 
  time:inTemporalPosition time:Indeterminate ] ;.
```
Etc. I think those two will do. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
> Sent: Monday, 20 July, 2020 17:07
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> Cc: public-sdwig@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 21 July 2020 05:15:52 UTC