- From: Karl Grossner <karlg@stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:13:28 +0000
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Kerry.Taylor@acm.org" <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>
- CC: "frans.knibbe@geodan.nl" <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Dear all, I am unable to attend 6am meetings or F2Fs (no budget), so although I have a keen interest in temporal representation and incorporating time into spatial representations, I donıt know how I can play an active part. Anyway, I have added a short section to the bottom of the Time Wish List on the wiki with the OWL-Time extensions Iıd like to see. The Library of Congress EDTF work is very interesting however it doesnıt include intervals bounded by intervals, which I think is a priority; several other good ideas, though. https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_Wish_List Best Karl Karl Grossner, PhD Center for Interdisciplinary Digital Research Stanford University Libraries http://kgeographer.org On 8/11/15, 12:16 PM, "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote: >Kerry, all, >The Library of Congress has proposed the EDTF (Extended > Date/Time Format) as an extension to ISO 8601 [1]. Their proposal is >also of relevance for ³fuzzy² dates. >[1] >http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html >Best, >Lars >*** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek *** > >-- > >Dr. Lars G. Svensson >Deutsche Nationalbibliothek >Informationsinfrastruktur und Bestanderhaltung >Adickesallee 1 >D-60322 Frankfurt am Main >Telefon: +49-69-1525-1752 >Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799 >mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de >http://www.dnb.de > > >From: Little, Chris [mailto:chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk] > >Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:35 PM >To: Kerry.Taylor@acm.org >Cc: karlg@stanford.edu; frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; >Svensson, Lars; Simon.Cox@csiro.au >Subject: RE: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations > > > >Kerry, >Happy to present one or two slides highlighting the OGC Temporal DWG >thinking/guidance > on temporal regimesı, but still work in progress. >Chris > >From:Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au] > >Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:21 PM >To: >Kerry.Taylor@acm.org <mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org> >Cc: >karlg@stanford.edu <mailto:karlg@stanford.edu>; frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; >public-sdw-wg@w3.org; >L.Svensson@dnb.de <mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de> >Subject: RE: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations > > > >Kerry > >Am more than happy to re-present the talk I gave (remotely) in Barcelona, >if you > think it would help. Its only 5 slides, including the title, so wouldnıt >take up much time. > > >If it were helpful, I guess I could extend it a little to introduce the >comparison > predicates (inside, before, during, equals, finishes, meets, overlaps, >starts) which are clearly of interest in this discussion but were not the >subject of my paper. > >Simon >From: > Kerry Taylor [mailto:Kerry.Taylor@acm.org] > >Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015 10:38 PM >To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> >Cc: <karlg@stanford.edu> <karlg@stanford.edu>; <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org> ><Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>; > <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; ><public-sdw-wg@w3.org> <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; > <L.Svensson@dnb.de> <L.Svensson@dnb.de> >Subject: Re: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations > > > >I am going to put ISSUE-14 on the agenda for this week. I agree that it >is well within our scope to change OWL-Time as we see fit, although > because it has a large user base we should aim for backwards >compatibility. Dealing with "fuzzy time" seems necessary and is driven >by several use cases. > > > >But for now, we are just aiming to clarify the requirement as described >by Frans at the bottom of this thread. > > > >Karl, Simon, Chris why dont you nominate yourselves for a " technical >talk " on the wiki and we will give these ideas some air time! simon, > you did a short one at the F2F, but repeating in this context would not >hurt. > > > >Lars, I do hope you can come! > > > >Kerry > > > > > >On 10 Aug 2015, at 10:04 am, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > >Ĝ >OWL-Time was published in 2006 and seems fixed. >I already proposed a small extension to allow for non-Gregorian >calendars, with > the essential requirement that it preserves the existing encoding [1]. >I would suggest that we look at these other concerns with a similar goal >in mind > to protect existing users of OWL-Time, but where possible to also >accommodate the richer requirements. > > >Simon > >From: > Karl Grossner [mailto:karlg@stanford.edu] > >Sent: Sunday, 9 August 2015 1:21 AM >To: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org>; Frans Knibbe ><frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Lars Svensson ><L.Svensson@dnb.de> >Subject: Re: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations > > > >Frans, Kerry - > > > >OWL-time restricts the range of the hasBeginning and hasEnd properties to >Instant. If that range were extended to include > Interval, a great many of the temporal expressions we call ³fuzzy² (a >misnomer, uncertain is better) could be encoded that canıt be now, >including: > > >* ³[circa | early | mid | late] [month | year | century]² > >The 4-part pattern (earliestStart, latestStart, earliestEnd, latestEnd) >is as old as the hills elsewhere and intuitive - one > sees it in timelines, from 18th century hand drawn ones of Priestley [1] >to MITıs Simile Timeline. > > > >As noted, other kinds of uncertainty are handled by Allenıs relations: >before, during, after, etc. I would say they donıt > articulate actual relations well enough, but they do a basic job [2]. > > > >OWL-Time was published in 2006 and seems fixed. I agree it >should be extended. I guess Iım not clear on how the expression of the >requirement in this groupıs work will impact that standard. In the >meantime, ad hoc data formats (like the Topotime extension to GeoJSON, or > PeriodO) are tackling the requirement, coupled with software to >interpret data expressed in the new model(s). > > > >A more fundamental issue is that representation requirements for places >and temporal entities are symmetrical: places have > essential temporal attributes and occurrences have essential spatial >attributes. Events are geospatial phenomena; historical periods are >aggregations of geospatial phenomena. But I digress > > > >Cheers > >Karl > > > >[1] http://math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/images/priestley.gif > >[2] For example, ³before² could be intervalBefore, intervalStarts, or >intervalOverlaps. A really nice treatment of this is > in Freksa, C. (1992). Temporal reasoning based on semi-intervals. >Artificial Intelligence, 54: 199-227 > > > >On 8/8/15, 7:32 AM, "Kerry Taylor" <Kerry.Taylor@acm.org> > wrote: > > > > >>Frans, >> >>This requirement is asking for temporal relations which, as you suggest, >>are already in OWL-time (Allen's). I think that it >> is perfectly reasonable to leave that in as a requirement for our work >>even so. There were several relevant use cases. >> >> >> >>The "xsd formats" part of the requirement came specifically from use >>case >>http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases#Publishing_Cultural >>_Heritage_Data_.28Best_Practice.2C_Time.2C_Coverage.29 >> >>submitted by Lars, where he said that the xsd time formats available in >>OWL are insufficient. I suspect, however, that OWL-time >> addresses, or should address, that need, so perhaps the "( xsd >>formats)" part of the requirement can just be dropped. Almost >>certainly I was the one who wrote it, rather cryptically. >> >> >> >>Having said that, there is indeed a (fresh and separate) requirement >>that I think should replace that cryptic comment. OWL >> was updated in 2012 to adopt the updated 2012 xsd datatypes, but >>owl-time remains pre-2012. Xsd:datetimeStamp, at least, should be >>handled in OWL-time ( as OWL does). A requirement like "conform to the >>2012 update of OWL datatypes" would do, and could apply >> to both owl-time and also ssn. >> >> >> >>On the fuzzy time requirement, I wonder whether the intervals that can >>be represented in owl-time are good enough? Just wondering >> -- this is not a requirements question. >> >> >>@Lars, will you be able to come to the meeting this week? >> >> >> >> >>Kerry >> >> >> >> >>On 7 Aug 2015, at 11:33 pm, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> >> wrote: >> >> >>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 coveredr by the >>requirements currently in the UCR document? >> >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Frans >> >>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#Spatia >>lOperators>. >> 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#Tempor >>alVagueness>. 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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347> >> >>E >>frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >> >>www.geodan.nl <http://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 <http://www.geodan.nl> >> >>disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2015 06:14:06 UTC