- From: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:44:20 +0200
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Cc: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABTzy2TJ9kRkC-1UHPsYHPWb6-a7MV55UC919E9wP7pNOSmnsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Ok, it makes sense. I will remove this requirement for the Time deliverable. However, I think it makes sense to raise an issue to be discussed as a group dealing with spatial data on the Web, e.g. to state that a subset of sensor time series is not valid (due to an error detected in the sensor), that a satellite image is valid for a specific period of time, or to describe the validity in administrative boundaries. Cheers, Alejandro On 2 June 2015 at 03:45, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > It seems to me that the time ontology is about how to express time, > not about where and how expressions of time can be used. > > > > +1 > > > > The current scope of OWL-Time is quite clear in this sense - it provides > for how to describe time, so that other applications can then use it. > > My sense is that the Best Practices paper will where proposals about how > to use time|space will arise. > > But I am somewhat concerned that the BP will need to roll together both > the geometry schema, and the ways to use that, which is a different > approach to the time deliverable where concerns are more clearly separated. > > > > *Simon Cox** | **Research Scientist* > * CSIRO Land and Water* > PO Box 56, Highett Vic 3190, Australia > Tel +61 3 9252 6342 *| *Mob +61 403 302 672 > simon.cox@csiro.au > <https://vic.owa.csiro.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=Y8HMKTuUBkmbM97NjtDx5lGOnwxj1c9IdyRdGXbcQ8yykNtSsGHlgXUbOJN1bdSmnc9NFxd8E0M.&URL=mailto%3asimon.cox%40csiro.au> *| > *http://csiro.au/people/SimonCox > ------------------------------ > *From:* Frans Knibbe [frans.knibbe@geodan.nl] > *Sent:* Monday, 1 June 2015 9:48 PM > *To:* Alejandro Llaves > *Cc:* SDW WG Public List > *Subject:* The 'valid time' requirement > > Hello Alejandro, > > About the Valid time requirement > <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ValidTime> ('It > should be possible to represent the time of validity that applies to a > thing, state or fact.'): I wonder why we consider this to be in scope for > the time ontology deliverable. It seems to me that the time ontology is > about how to express time, not about where and how expressions of time can > be used. > > Furthermore, if valid time is considered, transaction time can be > considered as well. In general, a thing can have multiple associated time > dimensions. But I think that is out of scope for the time ontology. > > Greetings, > 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> > > -- Alejandro Llaves Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) Artificial Intelligence Department Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Avda. Montepríncipe s/n Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves allaves@fi.upm.es
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 12:44:47 UTC