- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:27:14 -0500
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
I notice that: <owl:Class rdf:ID="Process"> <rdfs:comment> The most general class of processes </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&time;#IntervalEvent"/> ... So, it follows that AtomicProcesses aren't instants, which, while I accept that, could perhaps complicate some aspects of reasoning with them. (E.g., while it's great if you know that an AP is going to take up a certain amount of time, since you may be trying to figure out the overall time for a some composition, but you typically don't want, i take it, (relevant) change to happen during the AP (at least, from "inside" the AP).) More importantly, I don't think Processes, as we've currently defined them (i.e., as Process *definitions*) are TemporalThings at all. For example, it makes no sene to say that one definition is *before* another (it does make sense to say that this or that Process occurrence is before that other one, or that this Process execution is before this other one). Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 09:27:20 UTC