Re: space and time

Simon -

Thanks very much for this. Much historical data arrives as 'before' and 'after.' I'm working intently on archaeological data in recent months and certainly topological time and space are conflated in many senses with Harris matrices, etc. It's not an area of expertise and we're skirting attempts at re-representing it on this particular project. Principally, Topotime seeks to add operators for before, after and about to any ISO 8601 expression, permit some very basic estimations and then make parameters manipulable. That work is paused right now.

I will have a look at your 2005 paper soon. Sadly I can't get my hands on a copy of ISO 19108. Are there scope notes available for your gts model? Tough to evaluate without them!

best
Karl

------------------ 
Karl Grossner, PhD 
Digital Humanities Research Developer 
Stanford University Libraries 
Stanford,CA US 
www.kgeographer.org 


----- Original Message -----
> 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 Wednesday, 28 May 2014 00:21:51 UTC