Re: ISSUE-15: Past, present and future

So far no-one has come up with another interpretation. So I would like to
propose a wording for the requirement:

"It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past,
present or future with respect to another web resource"

How about that? Could that be something to vote on next Wednesday?

Regards,
Frans


2015-08-12 11:14 GMT+02:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>:

> Frans,
>
>
>
> So, I think we both agree on one interpretation of the requirement. Let’s
> see if anyone come up with another.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 07, 2015 1:46 PM
>
> *To:* Little, Chris
> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* Re: ISSUE-15: Past, present and future
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>



-- 
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>