- From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 14:45:45 +0200
- To: "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFVDz43iQoOUO4hRZThjSEEtj3uXB_RJTmya6D9V2Gayhdyppg@mail.gmail.com>
2015-08-05 16:06 GMT+02:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>: > Frans, > > > > The problem is that the ‘static assertions’ 'isAboutPastEvent', > 'isAboutPresentEvent' and 'isAboutFutureEvent' are definitely not, unless > you live in a ‘snapshot world’, they change at the rate of 1 day per day. > Well, they could be made static when related to a time. For instance, in 2015 I could write a document about the Spanish Civil War and state that the document is about a past event. I could also publish data about a document that was written in 1938 about the Spanish Civil War and state that it is about a current event. Similarly I could now publish a weather prediction for tomorrow and include a statement saying that my data, published today, is about a future event. This could count as 'coarse labelling of data'. Annotation like that could be useful, it allows distinction between predictions, hindsight and current observations. I am not proposing a solution to the problem here, but by means of this example I am trying to find out what the possible requirement should look like. That is what ISSUE-15 is about: it is not clear what is meant. > > > I will rummage around the existing requirement to see if my scenarios are > covered or not. > Thank you, that would be helpful. And if they are, do you think there won't be a need for an extra requirement? Regards, Frans > > > Chris > > > > *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 05, 2015 1:54 PM > *To:* Little, Chris > *Cc:* SDW WG Public List > *Subject:* Re: ISSUE-15: Past, present and future > > > > Thanks for explaining Chris. > > > > It seems to me that current practices accomodate knowing about relative > past, present and future if some amount of processing is allowed, like in a > SPARQL query. But this is more about making static assertions? So perhaps > this calls for properties like 'isAboutPastEvent', 'isAboutPresentEvent' > and 'isAboutFutureEvent'? > > > > Do you there is a reason to create an additional requirement or to change > an existing requirement? If so, could you venture a proposal? > > > > Regards, > > Frans > > > > > > > > 2015-08-05 14:23 GMT+02:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>: > > Hi Frans, > > > > I think this requirement, as identified in the tracker comments, is about > coarse labelling of data. > > > > There is a subtlety that has to be captured: if an historian is annotating > a document that was written after the Spanish civil war (both ‘Past’) but > before another document (‘Past’), that would have been in the ‘Future’ at > the time. > > > > The same issue arises in a detailed way with weather forecasts – when > analysing past weather forecasts, we label things that were future in the > past. This ability to talk about such things is certainly reflected in lots > of languages like English and French. > > > > So I think it is part of logical reasoning about events and having > appropriate vocabularies and ontologies. > > > > I do not think that there is a requirement here for detailed temporal CRS > and calendar stuff. > > > > HTH, Chris > > > > *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2015 3:14 PM > *To:* SDW WG Public List > *Subject:* ISSUE-15: Past, present and future > > > > Hello, > > > > Like ISSUE-14, ISSUE-15 <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15> > did not have its dedicated e-mail thread yet. This message is intended to > start that thread and the discussion on how to resolve ISSUE-15. > > > > I am not sure what to make of this prospect requirement...Could anyone try > to explain what could be meant and whether we should consider adding a new > requirement or amending an existing requirement? > > > > Thanks, > > Frans > > > > -- > > Frans Knibbe > > Geodan > > President Kennedylaan 1 > > 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) > > > > T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 > > E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl > > www.geodan.nl > > disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> > > > > > > > > -- > > Frans Knibbe > > Geodan > > President Kennedylaan 1 > > 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) > > > > T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 > > E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl > > www.geodan.nl > > disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> > > > -- Frans Knibbe Geodan President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 12:46:18 UTC