There is a couple of years that the OWL Time specification has been published (2006). The specification is still in draft version ! Since then other proposals have been done for example Timeline Ontology. I think this specification should really be standardized by W3C as Time modeling is a critical information in many ontologies. Which time ontology are you using ? Why you think W3C is not able to push this specification as a recommendation.

asked 16 Jun '11, 13:00

fellahst's gravatar image

accept rate: 12%


Your proposed ontologies are already really fine for modelling main parts of the time domain. So I can suggest you to make use of them.

(16 Jun '11, 14:07) zazi zazi's gravatar image

A couple of years ago, it was 2009. 2006 is 5 years ago (yeah, time flies...). ;)

(21 Jun '11, 04:11) Antoine Zimm... ♦ Antoine%20Zimmermann's gravatar image

Just on the formal part:

Why you think W3C is not able to push this specification as a recommendation?

The OWL Time ontology is in the state of a "first public working draft" (FPWD), which has been created by the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group (SWBPD). The SWBPD has finished in 2006 and so work on the Time ontology has been discontinued.

Note that only an active W3C working group would be able to drive the Time ontology into a W3C recommendation, and this is a longish and complex process. The W3C itself can be seen as either the small group of staff members called the "W3C Team" (about 60 people at the time of writing), or as the full collection of member organizations (several hundreds) that pay money to be in the club. In both cases, none of them can create W3C Recommendations without an active working group doing all the work and letting all the member organizations give their vote on the outcome of the working group (a so called "Proposed Recommendation") in the end. The team and the member organizations can only publish either "Team Submissions", such as the N3 spec, or "Member Submissions", such as the SWRL spec, respectively, but neither have the state of official standards.

So, unless some current or future W3C working continues the work on the Time ontology, the current state of the document is not going to change. My personal estimation is that this is not going to happen, at least not in the following couple of years.

permanent link

answered 16 Jun '11, 13:34

Michael%20Schneider's gravatar image

Michael Schn... ♦
accept rate: 34%

edited 16 Jun '11, 13:59


I think this is very unfortunate. I think the role of the W3C is also to try to bootstrap the semantic web by creating a set of horizontal ontologies such as time, spatial, measures etc. It is a pity that the SWBPD is not active anymore because I think it was an ideal venue for this. As a side note, Open Geospatial Consortium is also addressing many of these horizontal models but they choose XML schema path (with GML) as a way to encode time (ISO 19108) and geometries (ISO 19107). The fact that no one wants to take the lead on these issues will make interoperability difficult to reach.

(16 Jun '11, 15:48) fellahst fellahst's gravatar image

We are using owl-time.

The Timeline ontology owl:imports <http://www.w3.org/2006/time> .

As you can read in rdfs:comment for The Timeline ontology, it

  Extends owl-time ontology (http://www.w3.org/2006/time) with  
  support for several timelines, acting as a backbone to adress 
  time interval/instants.
permanent link

answered 21 Jun '11, 08:31

utapyngo's gravatar image

accept rate: 19%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 16 Jun '11, 13:00

question was seen: 4,499 times

last updated: 21 Jun '11, 08:31