gist:ContemporaneousEvent incorrect rdfs:comment

[marksem]

Comments says: "An event that actually started after the present time. When we record an end time it ceases to be contemporaneous"

Isn't this incorrect to say it started after? Isn't this supposed to be that it started before the current time, and is still ongoing?

[uscholdm]

Yeah, I think so. Good catch.

[marksem]

@rjyounes , bringing this back to our awareness. Fix should just be changing comment to something like:
"An event that actually started before the present time. When we record an end time it ceases to be contemporaneous."

[rjyounes]

I've put this on the June project to get it back on our radar.

Comments:

• I recommend changing the name altogether. "Contemporaneous" refers to TWO times that occur at the same time. I have not seen any dictionary that defines it as contemporaneous with the current time without explicitly specifying that. How about CurrentEvent? (Note: this promotes the fix from a patch to a minor change (with deprecation of the current term), or major if we include it in 10.0.0 and remove the current term altogether.)
• The contemporaneous event could have started before or at the current moment in time. (I guess this is a quibble since as soon as we've recorded that start time it's already in the past.)
• The contemporaneous event ceases to be contemporaneous only if the recorded end time is before the current time. If it is a future time we would still refer to it as contemporaneous.

I've added some additional questions related to our Event class hierarchy in #489. We may want to consider these in tandem, or we may want to address this smaller issue first and the larger issues in #489 later.

[rjyounes]

DECISION: Change definition now, leave naming question till later. This may end up being removed due to lack of use.