RE: space and time

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/

 > 
 >

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 16:08:46 UTC