RE: space and time

+1

Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone

---- Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote ----

>Yes - I agree that a core vocabulary should do the simple things simply. 
>But it should not erect a fence that makes doing the more sophisticated things impossible. 
>In both time and space a key requirement is that it should be possible to use reference systems other than the default. 
>
>While 90%+ of use-cases will use the well-known calendar and clock that are implemented in the XSD time types, there are nevertheless applications and communities who need to use other timescales. 
>Let's try to ensure that the core is extensible in a standard way so the variant users don't have to go elsewhere. 
>
>Simon
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrea Perego [mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu] 
>Sent: Saturday, 7 June 2014 2:17 AM
>To: Frans Knibbe | Geodan
>Cc: Karl Grossner; public-locadd@w3.org Mailing list
>Subject: Re: space and time
>
>Hi, Frans.
>
>> I think this is the core of the matter: Are space and time truly 
>> dependent on each other? Or do they just happen to occur together very 
>> often? If the latter is the case, I think it is better to keep the 
>> semantics separate. It is one of the things I like about the semantic 
>> web: vocabularies are modules that  can be mixed and matched at will. 
>> And if a  vocabulary is designed well it will be as simple as possible 
>> and not try to model anything outside its scope.
>
>About your main question, I think that whether and how much space and time are dependent on each other depends on the specific use case.
>
>IMHO, what we need is something like a "core" time ontology. Specific extensions can then be defined to address the specific requirements of the different use cases. In this scenario, the key point is: what are the cross-disciplinary requirements to be addressed by a core time ontology?
>
>I would be interested to see if this option will be considered in future work on the W3C Time Ontology. But for sure we can contribute the issues we identified, as Simon pointed out earlier in this thread.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Andrea
>
>