This becomes problematic, unfortunately, in RDF which does not have a way to
natively express a Number that is actually an interval. The resolution would
be to do the same as P81a/b … which would have the same effect as maintaining
P83 and P84, just not in the model directly.
While I appreciate the theoretical consistency that this change would add, from
an implementation perspective, this would bring more complexity than value.
Overall, I’m not in favor of the deprecation, but am not averse to adding
had_duration separately, with the potential to deprecate 83 and 84 if a
holistic approach to date and number intervals can be devised.
Thanks!
Rob
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr
<mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Date: Friday, February 15, 2019 at 9:18 AM
To: crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 397
Dear All
As discussed in Berlin, I proposed to deprecate P83, P84, because in competes
with an interval interpretation of P90, and :
Introduce instead Pxxx had duration, Domain: E52 Time-Span, Range: E54
Dimension
and use the P90, P90a, P90b as adequate
or introduce an Exxx Temporal Duration , subclass of E54 Dimension, and define
subproperties in RDFS ending in xsd:duration.
Here my definition:
Pxxx had duration (was duration of)
Domain: E52 Time-Span
Range: E54 Dimension
Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)
Scope note: This property describes the length of time covered by an
E52 Time-Span. It allows an E52 Time-Span to be associated with an E54
Dimension representing duration (i.e. it’s inner boundary) independent from the
actual beginning and end. Indeterminacy of the duration value can be expressed
by assigning a numerical interval to the property P90 has value of E54
Dimension.
Examples:
§ the time span of the Battle of Issos 333 B.C.E. (E52) had duration Battle of
Issos minimum duration (E54) has unit (P91) day (E58) has value (P90) (E60)
In First Order Logic:
Pxxx(x,y) ⊃ E52(x)
Pxxx(x,y) ⊃ E54(y)
Comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See:
P83 had at least duration (was minimum duration of)
Domain: E52 Time-Span
Range: E54 Dimension
Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)
Scope note: This property describes the minimum length of time covered
by an E52 Time-Span.
It allows an E52 Time-Span to be associated with an E54 Dimension representing
it’s minimum duration (i.e. it’s inner boundary) independent from the actual
beginning and end.
Examples:
§ the time span of the Battle of Issos 333 B.C.E. (E52) had at least duration
Battle of Issos minimum duration (E54) has unit (P91) day (E58) has value (P90)
1 (E60)
In First Order Logic:
P83(x,y) ⊃ E52(x)
P83(x,y) ⊃ E54(y)
P84 had at most duration (was maximum duration of)
Domain: E52 Time-Span
Range: E54 Dimension
Quantification: one to one (1,1:1,1)
Scope note: This property describes the maximum length of time covered
by an E52 Time-Span.
It allows an E52 Time-Span to be associated with an E54 Dimension representing
it’s maximum duration (i.e. it’s outer boundary) independent from the actual
beginning and end.
Examples:
§ the time span of the Battle of Issos 333 B.C.E. (E52) had at most duration
Battle of Issos maximum duration (E54) has unit (P91) day (E58) has value (P90)
2 (E60)
In First Order Logic:
P84(x,y) ⊃ E52(x)
P84(x,y) ⊃ E54(y)
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
