W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2015

Re: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:33:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz41xL-ujeJEKP4_Wxu0KejRkj=dkNzHQzsBzV-kqRmbptw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karl Grossner <karlg@stanford.edu>
Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Hello Karl,

Should the OWL time ontology make it possible to work with vague or fuzzy
time, which already is a requirement, do you think there is a need for an
additional requirement?

I am fully convinced that time is important and that in many cases time can
not be encoded in ISO 8601. But the main issue in this discussion is
getting the requirement (if there is one) straight. At least the editors of
the UCR document are not clear on what is meant by the proposed
requirement. Do you see a clear requirement and could you explain it?
Perhaps there is something useful in Topotime that is not in OWL Time and
is not covered by the requirements currently in the UCR document?


2015-08-04 17:56 GMT+02:00 Karl Grossner <karlg@stanford.edu>:

> Hello,
> Don't know whether or how this may be useful in the business of SDW; I've
> been largely absent from the group due to timing of meetings:
> Use Case 4.17 states, "There is no framework available to describe fuzzy
> temporal information." There are, however two nascent efforts that will
> accommodate 'fuzziness' in varying degree: the *Periods, Organized*
> project [1] and *Topotime* [2]. In both cases, timespans can be described
> not only by pairs of instants, but also by pairs of intervals. This pattern
> has appeared elsewhere (e.g. in the SIMILE Timeline software).
> Additionally, Topotime includes operators like before (<), after (>), and
> about (~), and differentiates 'some time/duration within' and 'throughout.'
> It is currently in active (re-)development as a GeoJSON extension [3].
> All phenomena occurring at a location have temporal attributes of co-equal
> importance (which isn't to say we always know them, or care, or that people
> aren't prone to using spatial snapshots). But general models of natural
> phenomena should permit representing their most important characteristics,
> including the 'where' and 'when' of them. What motivates Topotime is that
> in historical data we are very frequently representing entities with shapes
> and positions that change over time, and for which spatial-temporal extents
> are uncertain in various ways.
> Happy to discuss further - in or out of this thread :^)
> Karl
> [1] http://perio.do
> [2] http://dh.stanford.edu/topotime
> [3] https://github.com/kgeographer/topotime
> --
> Karl Grossner, PhD
> Center for Interdisciplinary Digital Research
> Stanford University Libraries
> http://kgeographer.org
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2015 6:33 AM
> *To:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations
> Hello,
> The oldest remaining issue with the UCR document is ISSUE-14
> <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/14>: Not clear Time req. -
> temporal reasoning and relations (xsd formats). Until now the issue had
> no related e-mail thread. This message changes that. I hope we can all
> think about this issue and work towards resolving it - hopefully in next
> week's meeting.
> My personal understanding is that this issue could be intended to lead to
> addition of a new requirement that is the temporal equivalent of the spatial
> operators requirement
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#SpatialOperators>.
> Especially when considering inexact dates and times I think it would be
> good to have operators like 'before', 'after', 'during' at one's disposal.
> But when looking at the Time Ontology I see such concepts are already
> there. I understand them to be only usable with exact dates and times, but
> there already is a requirement for temporal vagueness
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TemporalVagueness>.
> Could this mean there is no reason to add another requirement?
> Regards,
> 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
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 13:34:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:17 UTC