Feng Pan and Jerry Hobbs, Let's reflect on your coding example for a moment. <time:Instant rdf:ID="departureDate"> <time:inCalendarClockDataType rdf:datatype="&xsd;dateTime"> 2005-03-10</time:inCalendarClockDataType> </time:Instant> Will people really think a departure date is an "Instant"? Will anyone have a clue what inCalendarClockDataType is? Is this acceptable coding for the XML and RDF/A worlds? Wouldn't DepartureDate be a class defined somewhere? Isn't THIS coding infinitely better: <xxx:Date rdf:ID="myDepartureDate" date='2005-03-10'/> I urge you to take another crack at creating a time ontology that can be easilly understood. One simply echoing academic research with little regard for practice-minded communities, is short-sighted. For instance, you say that Year, CalendarYear, January, and Sunday can all be defined as subclasses ..... yet you don't do it -- why not? Surely you can appreciate that definition of THESE TERMS is both critical and mandatory. John McClureReceived on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 16:33:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:16 UTC