Re: space and time

I had not seen any mention of this FGDC standard in the thread.  It
attempts to deal with describing time and space and uncertainties in
inherent in both.

http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/news/TSPI

Carl.









On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello Simon,
>
> Thank you.  This is very helpful.
>
> In a previous email I referred to the W3C time ontology as Surveillance
> Society Junk. I was suprised (myself least of all, and epic-ally so) that
> the message was lost in transit.  I had in mind the problem of decrementing
> the calendar through strata and the related problem of incrementing the
> calendar with dynamic discovey (defining the strata boundaries as you go
> along).
>
> Partial processing of RDF/SKOS style lists is more than unhelpful in this
> regard as it calls into question the efficacy of OWL for scientific
> pursuits.
>
> --Gannon
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 5/27/14, Simon.Cox@csiro.au <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
>  Subject: RE: space and time
>  To: karlg@stanford.edu, raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
>  Cc: janowicz@ucsb.edu, public-locadd@w3.org, pascal.hitzler@wright.edu,
> adams@nceas.ucsb.edu
>  Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014, 12:38 AM
>
>  Karl -
>
>  I note that some of your historical application examples use
>  a temporal reference system that is based on ordered
>  sequences of named periods. These may be modelled as a
>  (constrained) temporal topology, which may be related to a
>  temporal coordinate system, but is often used independently.
>  As I implied in my earlier message to this list, that is a
>  situation that also applies in archaeology and geology.
>  While there are certainly differences in practice between
>  these disciplines, the general principle is common. The
>  standard time ontologies (particularly W3 Time) do not
>  support this case.
>
>  There is a more comprehensive, but still flawed, treatment
>  of temporal reference systems in ISO 19108, which we
>  critiqued in a paper published in 2005
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/GES00022.1
>  More recently we have developed an OWL implementation,
>  described in a paper in press in Earth Science Informatics,
>  and available at http://resource.geosciml.org/ontology/timescale/thors
>  which is aligned with both the ISO 19108 Temporal Topology
>  and Temporal Reference System models (with a geological
>  extension at http://resource.geosciml.org/ontology/timescale/gts )
>
>  Possibly of interest.
>
>  Simon Cox
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Karl Grossner [mailto:karlg@stanford.edu]
>
>  Sent: Monday, 26 May 2014 2:29 AM
>  To: Raphaël Troncy
>  Cc: janowicz@ucsb.edu;
>  public-locadd@w3.org;
>  Pascal Hitzler; Ben Adams
>  Subject: Re: space and time
>
>  Krzysztof, Raphaël -
>
>  Academic publication time-frames drive me crazy. I have
>  placed an excerpt from our chapter-in-review on my web site
>  so list members who have an interest can read it. The
>  chapter is about Linked Data for historical gazetteers and
>  the pattern discussion comes in Section 3. As Krzysztof
>  says, it is an informal introduction.
>
>    http://kgeographer.com/assets/GrossnerJanowiczKessler_excerpt.pdf
>
>
>  This discussion is of great interest. Yes, there is now an
>  effort at a new GeoJSON-LD standard, and I have
>  co-instigated getting time into it (not into core GeoJSON;
>  that idea has been rejected by its keepers).
>
>  I should also note my recent work with Elijah Meeks on
>  Topotime (http://dh.stanford.edu/topotime)
>
>  People's views about the urgency of somehow joining spatial
>  and temporal seem to vary depending on the use cases they
>  deal with the most. I work in historical applications and
>  see the joining as essential.
>
>  Regarding the observation that any data _could_ have a
>  temporal dimension so why favor spatial, I would say this:
>  it's not about adding temporality to widget data, it's about
>  the opportunity to include temporal with spatial if you're
>  representing widget locations.
>
>  The location of a thing or event/period is in fact spatial
>  and temporal whether or not we care about both aspects in a
>  given situation. A general data model should account for the
>  essential characteristics of what it models! In the case of
>  GeoJSON-LD, a Feature will have an optional "when" object at
>  the same level as the "geometry" object. Existing software
>  that parses GeoJSON will ignore the "when" (as well as the
>  @context), but applications can be written to process it.
>
>  I'm not thrilled with how GeoJSON-LD is shaping up but do
>  consider it making time a co-equal aspect with space in
>  answers to "where?" a significant step forward.
>
>  cheers, Karl
>
>
>  ------------------
>  Karl Grossner, PhD
>  Digital Humanities Research Developer
>  Stanford University Libraries
>  Stanford,CA US
>  www.kgeographer.org
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  > Dear Krzysztof,
>  >
>  > > If you are interested in a tight integration of
>  space and time, we
>  > > are currently working on a so-called 'settings'
>  ontology design
>  > > pattern that does exactly that. It was developed
>  during the last
>  > > Geo-VoCamp in Santa Barbara in March 2014. We also
>  have a more
>  > > informal piece about this that is currently under
>  review (I am
>  > > cc-ing Karl Grossner in case he wants to share the
>  draft)
>  >
>  > Are you saying that this work is being currently
>  peer-reviewed? I
>  > would definitively be interested in reading the draft
>  and/or the
>  > summary of the March Geo-VoCamp (any pointers?) but I
>  understand you
>  > might not be able to share it just right now.
>  > Best regards.
>  >
>  >    Raphaël
>  >
>  > --
>  > Raphaël Troncy
>  > EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
>  > Multimedia Communications Department
>  > 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
>  > e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
>  & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
>  > Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
>  > Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
>  > Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
>
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>