- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 18:53:16 -0700
- To: <public-locadd@w3.org>
- CC: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, Ben Adams <adams@nceas.ucsb.edu>, Karl Grossner <karlg@stanford.edu>
Dear all, this is indeed a very important and pressing topic. With respect to the examples below, I would just like to point out that a temporal (and spatial) scope is different from a statement that some event occurred before, after, during, etc, another event or that a certain territory was established during a particular time. Such statements can be addressed by defining a vocabulary for them. The scoping would have to be addressed by the formal semantics of the KR language and in fact Pat Hayes proposed this a few times before. 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) I hope we can report more details within the next few weeks. Cheers, Krzysztof On 05/24/2014 01:39 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks for starting up this thread Frans. I don't have a strong opinion > on this issue, and, like you, I tend to think that space and orthogonal > dimensions. However, there are a number of use cases where those > dimensions are tied which trigger the question where we should not have > a few handy predicates to handle those cases, among others : > - the temporal validity of the spatial extent of a geographic > feature: this is indeed a generic use case that can be applied to any > resource (a solution is for example Memento) > - the temporal evolution of the spatial extent of a geographic > feature: the typical case is to represent the evolution of boundaries of > a administrative unit > - etc. > > I observe that: > - since 1 month, there is a HUGE thread in the geojson community in > order to be able to represent time together with space. Concrete > proposals have been made, see https://github.com/geojson/geojson-ld/issues/ > - OWL Time is a draft, unfinished, and criticized for a number of use > cases. There has been an attempts 18 months ago from Ivan Herman and > others to clean it up and publish it as a more stable /ns W3C vocab. But > nothing really happened, everyone is busy. > - as Andrea mentioned, this issue was of the key topics discussed at > LGD'14. > Best regards. > > Raphaël > -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 5806 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2014 01:53:51 UTC