Re: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations

Karl,

Item 1was considered to be covered by issue-26 which refers to another requirement. 
So we focused instead on clearing up what remained of issue-14. Issue-26 remains on our to-do list, but it, too, is about the requirement in fairly general terms rather than the solution. Please have a look at that issue and help resolve it by posting a message that refers to it( "issue-26"). 

Right now Best practices is our priority  and many Europeans are away but I am hoping we will begin to start working on owl time in a few weeks, and to start that with a session of presentations, and I hope you can help here. We have not yet solved the 6am problem though -- suggestions welcome!  Please  you put yourself down for a "technical talk" on our wiki page if you are willing to do so.

Meanwhile, posting your thoughts to this list, as well as capturing on the wiki is very helpful.

Kerry

> On 13 Aug 2015, at 12:58 am, Karl Grossner <karlg@stanford.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Regrets on missing the meeting.
> 
> (@Chris) Item 1 in Frans’ list does not refer to ‘intervals as instants’
> - rather it is about intervals replacing instants as the bounds of
> intervals (yes this does recurse, but the suggestion is to branch once).
> 
> Item 1 does not seem to have been taken up in the telecon, is there some
> particular reason? Yesterday I added an item to the Wiki “time wish list,”
> as I understood Kerry to say the wiki was an option for pursuing the
> discussion asynchronously (pasted below for the record). How can I
> contributed to resolution of ISSUE 26?
> 
> 
> Karl
> 
> **************
> Further support for uncertain temporal expressions-- Contributed by Karl
> Grossner <https://kgeographer.org> 2015-08-11
> 
> OWL-Time does support some uncertain expressions by means of interval
> relations accounting for "before," "after," (sometime) "during," etc. It
> does not allow for approximate and vague expressions such as "circa 560
> CE" or "sometime in the early 1920's." These could be covered in two ways:
> 
> 1. by allowing a '~' operator to accompany any ISO-8601 expression
> 
> 2. by allowing the hasBeginning and hasEnd elements to be specified by
> intervals as well as by instants
> 
> e.g. the object of a hasEnd property could be an interval having
> earliestEnd and latestEnd properties
> A number of further OWL-Time extensions, such as adding an "uncertain"
> operator ('?') to '~', for an entire ISO-8601 expression or parts thereof,
> are proposed in the fairly recent US Library of Congress document,
> **"Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF) 1.0”**
> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/datetime/pre-submission.html>
> 
> — 
> Karl Grossner, PhD
> Center for Interdisciplinary Digital Research
> Stanford University Libraries
> http://kgeographer.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/12/15, 2:11 AM, "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Frans, and WG members,
>> 
>> Some background info for your Proposal 1 below, ‘support for intervals as
>> instants’:
>> 
>> 
>> The OGC Temporal Domain WG last year approved a discussion paper from
>> Matthias Müller and Peter Broßheit basically proposing the view that
>> there are no instants
>> – all instants are just (small) intervals, and showing that everything
>> hangs together, and gives a firm mathematical/logical basis for some
>> assumptions people had made in existing standards, such as WMS, about
>> intervals and the Allen algebra.
>> 
>> It is OGC 14-107 ‘A Conceptual Model and Text-based Notation for Temporal
>> Geometry’. Copy attached for those who struggle with the OGC Portal.
>> 
>> HTH, Chris
>> 
>> 
>> From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
>> 
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 9:46 AM
>> To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: ISSUE 14: temporal reasoning and relations
>> 
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> 
>> Can we direct this discussion towards making concrete proposals for
>> changing requirements or adding new ones? That would help the process of
>> improving the UCR document, and it could help in
>> keeping the upcoming meeting focussed.
>> 
>> 
>> 1. 
>> Making it possible to deal with uncertainty in time is already covered by
>> the 
>> temporal vagueness
>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Tempora
>> lVagueness> requirement. However,
>> ISSUE-26 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26> was raised
>> because it needs clarification. Shall we try to address that issue now,
>> since we are on the subject? It seems to me that more and diverse
>> examples could do the job. Or should we go as far as pointing towards a
>> solution, e.g. making it
>> possible to use intervals instead of instants for hasBeginning and
>> hasEnd?
>> 2. 
>> A new requirement was proposed: "OWL Time should be updated to conform to
>> the 2012 update of OWL datatypes." The requirement seems clear enough. Is
>> it phrased correctly? Or is better to just say that OWL time should
>> support xsd:dateTimeStamp?
>> 3. 
>> A new requirement was proposed, for temporal relationships. Perhaps
>> something like "There should be support for temporal relationships
>> (Allen's interval algebra)." But the funny thing is that it is already
>> there. I feel that if we want to add this requirement
>> it should at least come with an explanation of why this requirement is
>> made explicit, because in general we do not repeat exising OWL time
>> functionality in our requirements.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Frans
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2015-08-12 8:13 GMT+02:00 Karl Grossner <karlg@stanford.edu>:
>> 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 don¹t 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 I¹d like to see. The Library of
>> Congress EDTF work is very interesting however it doesn¹t 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 <tel:%2B49-69-1525-1752>
>>> Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799 <tel:%2B49-69-1525-1799>
>>> 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 <mailto: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 Œtemporal regimes¹, 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 wouldn¹t
>>> 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:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ø
>>> 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 can¹t 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 MIT¹s Simile Timeline.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As noted, other kinds of uncertainty are handled by Allen¹s relations:
>>> before, during, after, etc. I would say they don¹t
>>> 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 I¹m not clear on how the expression of the
>>> requirement in this group¹s 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 digressŠ
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Karl
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]
>> http://math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/images/priestley.gif
>> <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_Cultura
>>>> l
>>>> _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#Spati
>>>> a
>>>> 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#Tempo
>>>> r
>>>> 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>
>>>> <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
>>>> 
>>>> E
>>>> frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>>>> 
>>>> www.geodan.nl <http://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 <tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
>>>> 
>>>> E
>>>> frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>>>> 
>>>> www.geodan.nl <http://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 <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
>> 
>> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl>
>> 
>> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>