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: Mon, 25 May 2020 03:23:30 +0000
To: √Člie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>, "public-sdwig@w3.org" <public-sdwig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ME2PR01MB288201DCCBC7493ED3D8444E88B30@ME2PR01MB2882.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Well since it will involve some significant documentation as well as ontology changes, I think a short spec is required. 
Take a look at two 'extensions' that I already generated for consideration by the SDWIG - 
- https://w3c.github.io/sdw/time-aggregates/ whose sources are in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/time-aggregates 
- https://w3c.github.io/sdw/time-entity-relations/ whose sources are in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/gh-pages/time-entity-relations 
These might be models for you. 

From a technical perspective, there is a concern not to compromise 'backward compatibility' in the sense that data (individuals, a-box) that follow the current ontology do not become inconsistent or get harmful entailments as a consequence of a new axioms (t-box). Note the approach I took for the 2017 version of OWL-Time was to interpolate super-classes with more generalized definitions above the existing classes that were designed for the Gregorian Calendar. That is where those 'GeneralizedAAA' classes and 'GeneralBBB' datatypes came from. I suspect a similar strategy should be applied to support your use-cases. 

-----Original Message-----
From: √Člie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu> 
Sent: Monday, 25 May, 2020 04:18
To: public-sdwig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Time ontology extension for non-Gregorian calendars

> How about proposing specific changes to OWL-Time?

I'm very happy to do that yes! What would be the best way to document proposals and submit them?

Best,
--
Elie

Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 03:24:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 25 May 2020 03:24:35 UTC