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

RE: Time ontology extension for non-Gregorian calendars

From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 12:23:13 +0000
To: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ME2PR01MB2882AD28ADE4A91C856FD2D088B20@ME2PR01MB2882.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Ah - now I see some of the issues. Examples always help (real ones are best). Nice. 

How about proposing specific changes to OWL-Time? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu> 
Sent: Friday, 22 May, 2020 20:46
To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Time ontology extension for non-Gregorian calendars

Dear All,

Thanks Simon for your answer!

I think I misrepresented the type of extension I'm thinking of, as I can't really see it mentioned in the ISO docs. Here's one of the examples I'm thinking of: a typical sequence of day of the month (or month of the year) in a lunar calendar is as follows:

1
2
2 (bis)
3
5

where there are duplicate and omitted values. In that case, my first instinct is to use literals that would go like

"---1"^^time:generalDay
"---2"^^time:generalDay
"---2b"^^time:generalDay
"---3"^^time:generalDay
"---5"^^time:generalDay

but "---2b"^^time:generalDay is invalid as it contains a "b" (I just made that notation up but I don't think there's any). Another option would be something like

time:dayIsDuplicate true

(but this has subtle problems with the open world assumption).

This kind of feature is common to so many calendar systems all over the world that I think it would be a valuable addition to OWL-Time and would ease the design of extensions significantly.

What do you think?

Best,
--
Elie

Received on Sunday, 24 May 2020 12:23:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 24 May 2020 12:23:41 UTC