Dear Matthew, (01)
JFS>> This list of options illustrates why it is so difficult to
>> handle time in RDF and OWL: they have no way of representing
>> contexts, extra arguments for time, or modal and temporal
>> operators. For a specific problem, some ad hoc solution may
>> be possible, but there is no systematic representation. (02)
MW> These difficulties do not apply to 4-dimensionalism, because
> periods in time are 4D spatio-temporal extents, and you can
> simply say that a process, or a state was part of that period.
> This can be handled by either OWL or CL. (03)
The major difficulties are not in representing a single time
or date and associating it with something else that has been
identified. The problem is to develop a systematic representation
that relates times to evolving processes in a way that can support
systematic methods for reasoning about them. See that summary of
2304 types of processes by Eric Sandewall: (04)
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/process.htm (05)
I agree that a 4D representation has a lot of advantages for many
purposes, but a 3+1 D form also has advantages for certain kinds
of problems. (06)
In his book (from which I took that list), Sandewall goes into
great detail about methods for using logic for those kinds of
reasoning, and he's using a much richer logic than OWL and RDF. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|