Re: [OEP] Review o Time Ontology editor's draft 18 April 2006

Jerry,

All your suggestions sound fine to me.

Taking my chair role for a moment: once you've been able to make the 
changes I think we are in a position to propose to the WG to publish the 
document as 1st WD, which means we're asking for review by the general 
public.

Guus

Jerry Hobbs wrote:
> 
> Guus,
> 
> Thanks again for the suggestions.
> 
> We will replace "begins" and "ends" with "hasBeginning" and "hasEnd"
> in the OWL version of the ontology, to conform to OWL convention.
> 
> (In the full theory, we will keep "begins" and "ends" but introduce
> two new predicates "hasBeginning" and "hasEnd", with the trivial
> definitions
> 
>     hasBeginning(T,t) <--> begins(t,T)
> 
> simply because to do a global replacement would be too extensive.
> But that shouldn't upset the OWL community.  Only the "hasX" predicates
> will appear in OWL.)
> 
> On the relation between intervals of zero length and instants, that's
> a deep issue that we would rather avoid if possible.  I guess we could
> say something like
> 
> "It is generally safe to think of an instant as an interval with zero
> length, where the beginning and end are the same."
> 
>  > - In the Time ontology there is no way to "describe" Instants. You can
>  > only approximate them by inDateTimeDescription (or "inside").
> 
> We will add something like
> 
> "With inDateTimeDescription you do not describe instants; you only 
> approximate
> them by confining them within an interval.  This should generally be 
> adequate.
> Where it is not, you can always define an instant in a roundabout way as 
> the
> beginning of an interval."
> 
> -- Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 09:23:16 UTC