Representing Time in Stories

"ConceptNet doesn't take into account the concept of time", Glorianna always says so. I think it means that, unfortunately, the commonsene knowledge that we have currently does not encode enough time information at all. It seems to be wierd to most of us who are familiar with ConceptNet, since ConceptNet DOES encode causality inside. When it's cloudy, then it might rains later. When you play sports, you may get sweat. When a party begins, people may dance. All these are casual relations. What does she mean by not taking into account the concept of time?

I've been puzzled by this question for a while, and finally we came to this idea in the conversation with my friend ppjoey today.Consider the causal relations in ConceptNet ("I swim"-> "I feel hungry") and ("I feel hungry"->"I eat"). Both these relations are represented as state transformation. That is, from one state to another,just like this figure:
But if we think about it more carefully, these phenomena really don't happen discretely. It's not that I swim at an instant, and at the next instant I feel hungry. If we use this kind of simply representation of the casusal relationship in life, how are we gonna represent the things happening in the following story?

I was working in my office this morning. It was almost noon, and I gradually got hungry. I decided to have lunch, so I put on my jacket, and locked my door. As I am walking out of the office, Henry called me, and I stopped and talked to him. After a small conversation, I turned again and walked out of the office. I met my friend standing in front of the elevator, so we decided to eat together and we walked together toward the cafeteria. He was talking on the cellphone as we walked. After we arrived the cafeteria, we ordered the food, and sat down with some other friends who were already eating there. We ate and talked, and they left after they finished the lunch. Later, we finished ours and left too.

The state"feeling hungry" lasts for a very long period in this story, while "walking to the cafeteria" lasts for a shorter one, and "my friend talking on the phone" an even shorter one, and so on, so forth. It is hard to use the simple way of describing causality above to represent, for further reasoning, everything happening in this story. For example, it's hard to explain, in my friend's case, why the event of buying the food comes after the event of talking on the cellphone.
And, if I forgot my wallet in my office and had to go back to take it, it's gonna be hard to use collaboratively the commonsense knowledge of "feeling hungry"->"eating" and "forgeting to bring something with me"->"going back and get it" without confusing. Yes, of course we can use stack to push goals in our mind and pop them to carry them out. But since each event comes with a different sense of time, it makes no sense to use a single type of stack and push them altogether.

So there're three things I think to be lacked in the current representation: 1) the time span of each state, 2) the time span of the transition between two states, and 3) whether two states can occur concurrently. If these three elements can be incorporated, it would be much easier to solve the representation problem of arbitrary stories. For again the example of "I swim"-> "I feel hungry" and "I feel hungry"->"I eat", one could get a clearer picture when looking at this figure:
The idea in this figure is that, it is a gradual, continuous process for one to feel hungry as he/she swim, and the hunger fades out gradually too as eating more and more. The state of feeling hungry can take place concurrently with either swiming or eating, but eating and swimming have to be done seperately.