Address issues with gist:Task and gist:ScheduledTask

[turingtest37]

gist 10.0.0 defines Task as

A task which has been defined and either scheduled or accomplished, or both.

It should read "An Event which has been..."

[rjyounes]

I disagree - a task is far more specific than a generic event. It's also wrong to say it's been scheduled. And I agree that it's best if the definition doesn't use the same word as the label. Here are some dictionary definitions:

• A piece of work to be done or undertaken.
• A usually assigned piece of work often to be finished within a certain time.
• A definite piece of work assigned to, falling to, or expect of a person.

Of these, the first looks the best to me, though I don't love any of them. But I'm guessing that between us and them we can come up with good wording.

[uscholdm]

The problem here is that gist:Task, (as intended by its original author) really does correspond to the event of doing something even if that doing has not happened yet. I have long found that confusing, because the dictionary definition is different.

An important question is whether we genuinely want the concept that is currently modeled, but should call it something besides gist:Task or whether we should change the meaning of gist:Task to align better with common usage of the term. The latter is dangerous.

[rjyounes]

Hm, I see. I didn't look at gist when I responded. So the definition as it stands actually means: The event of performing a task in the usual sense and thus the apparent circularity!

I think it's a stretch to call tasks and projects events, and it's unfortunate that they are defined as such. It would be good to find out if that's how people are using it.

In the current hierarchy I don't see a difference between Task and ScheduledTask, defined as "A task planned to occur. When it was scheduled, it would have been in the future, but now might be in the past." Isn't that the same as "A task which has been defined and either scheduled or accomplished, or both."?

There's a lot that's fishy here and I think we should work out what classes are actually needed. I'd consider a Tasksubclass of Intention, and a ScheduledTask that is the intersection of Task and PlannedEvent, as currently. This would be a major change.

I'm going to change the title of this issue to reflect the fact that it's more than a matter of the text definition.

[uscholdm]

In the current hierarchy I don't see a difference between Task and ScheduledTask, defined as "A task planned to occur. When it was scheduled, it would have been in the future, but now might be in the past." Isn't that the same as "A task which has been defined and either scheduled or accomplished, or both."?

The difference is that "A task which has been defined and either scheduled or accomplished, or both." might not have been scheduled. A ScheduledTask by definition is or was scheduled.

[rjyounes]

OK, but is that really a useful distinction? Do we need to know that a task now completed was or wasn't scheduled? Can you describe a context in which that distinction would be important?

[rjyounes]

There's a question of whether to change the skos:definition before addressing the larger issues raised here, or to do them in tandem.

[bolerio]

I'd be in favor of addressing the larger issue. A Task being defined as an Event seems quite problematic to me. +1 to connecting it conceptually to Intention , as a sub-class or some other way.