@conzept__ Technically this is no problem at all as you can query any nodegoat project via an API: https://nodegoat.net/blog.s/26/nodegoat-api However, not many projects choose to publish their data like this.
@lorenzo251193 @nrchtct @nodegoat @w3c Sounds very reasonable. From a historical perspective we missed the opportunity to express relational date statements with ISO8601 / EDTF, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3NAJ7CfmAU
@nrchtct @nodegoat @lorenzo251193 @w3c Our implementation is based on logical operators, which would map to different ontologies when needed. We foresee @nodegoat ChronoJSON to be able to do what we want to do, and map to a generic ChronoJSON format for exchange, see https://nodegoat.net/guides/chronologystatements
@nrchtct @nodegoat @lorenzo251193 @w3c Thanks. We’ve recently been notified about http://chronojson.org. We would be happy to talk about how a streamlined ChronoJSON would relate to http://w3.org/TR/owl-time/ and other ontologies and vocabularies.
@docuracy @nodegoat Right! So the syntagma is there, but we need to extend the paradigm to support definable algorithms. It's on the suggested features list!
@docuracy @nodegoat Nice case proposition! In ChronoJSON you could state e.g. '2 months' after the Cycle 'Sun Fair' in the year '1850' where the Cycle 'Sun Fair' is defined as 'July 20' ending '5 days' after. Would you aim to change 'July 20' to something celestial/calender-algorithmic like Easter?