Re: [RSP] Call Minutes

Darko,

you are bringing validity time into the picture, it seems… whereas I understood that the use for time stamps at the moment was mainly meant for transaction time… [1]
is that right? If we have use cases that need validity time, I also think intervals make sense (FWIW, we have designed an extension for SPARQL to query validity time intervals [2]). 

best,
Axel

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_database
2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570826811000771

--
Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres

On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:05 PM, "Anicic, Darko" <darko.anicic@siemens.com> wrote:

> Hi Jean-Paul, Emanuele and all,
>  
> I like the proposal too, but I would not limit the proposal only to one time stamp. As we discussed before, I find the interval-based definition better, e.g., with startTime and endTime. The startTime may be optional in cases where the point-based timestamp is preferred, e.g., similarly as in [1] - a related approach to the Streaming Linked Data Framework, sent by Emanuele (see #6 in Section Vocabulary from [1]).
>  
> Cheers,
> Darko
>  
> [1]   http://km.aifb.kit.edu/sites/lodstream/
>  
> Von: Emanuele Della Valle [mailto:emanuele.dellavalle@polimi.it] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2013 11:15
> An: Jean-Paul; Anicic, Darko; public-rsp@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: [RSP] Call Minutes
>  
> Hi Jean-Paul, Darko and all,
>  
> I like the proposal. You may want to check out [1] where a similar approach was proposed. We named the graphs o *instantaneous graphs* (shortly iGraphs) and the graph containing the meta data Stream Graph (shortly sGraph). This solution is currently implemented in our Streaming Linked Data Framework [2].
>  
> GRAPH :sGraphA {
>   :iGraph-1 :timeStamp "t_1"^^xsd:dateTimestamp . 
>   :iGraph-2 :timeStamp "t_2"^^xsd:dateTimestamp . 
>   …
>   :iGraph-n :timeStamp "t_n"^^xsd:dateTimestamp . 
> }
>  
> GRAPH :iGraph-1 {…} 
> GRAPH :iGraph-2 {…} 
>  
> GRAPH :iGraph-n {…} 
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Emanuele
>  
> [1] http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-628/ldow2010_paper11.pdf
> [2] http://disi.unitn.it/~themis/publications/iswc13.pdf
>  
>  
>  
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:07 PM, Jean-Paul <jpcalbimonte@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The one in [1] is a very generic model proposed by Axel. We agreed to start from it to define the RDF Stream model.
> If you see the minutes, you will see we are pointing to something that *might* look like this:
> 
> o :timeStamp "foo"^^xsd:dateTimestamp . GRAPH o { t1, tn}
> 
> We have set an ACTION, that consists in formalizing these ideas in the wiki. It is our homework for next call. But we can surely discuss here as well.
> 
> best regards,
> jp
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 2013/12/9 Anicic, Darko <darko.anicic@siemens.com>
> Hi all,
>  
> since I was not present at the last telco, could you please let me know whether the RDF stream model that was discussed actually is the one described as “graph oriented” in [1], or there are some differences in the two?
> Cheers,
> Darko
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/RDF_Stream_Models
>  
> Von: jean.paul.ik@gmail.com [mailto:jean.paul.ik@gmail.com] Im Auftrag vonJean-Paul
> Gesendet: Samstag, 7. Dezember 2013 00:19
> An: public-rsp@w3.org
> Betreff: [RSP] Call Minutes
>  
> Hi all,
> 
> Please find in the wiki the minutes of today's call. Next one is on Dec 20th, and is the last for 2013. We will restart in January, the 17th.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/community/rsp/wiki/Telecon_06.12.2013
> 
> Thanks again for your support.
> 
> Good weekend!
> Jean-Paul
> 
> -- 
> jpcik!
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> I have moved to EPFL, please email me to:
> jean-paul.calbimonte@epfl.ch
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> jpcik!

Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 17:04:28 UTC