RE: space and time

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/

> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 05:39:34 UTC