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

RE: The 'valid time' requirement

From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:32:30 +0000
To: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <allaves@fi.upm.es>
CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3CD3C8BBF0D87B4D8154C3978732049C50F4730F@exmbx05-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
Agreed,  owl-time  is not about how you might use it - but the Requirement  can still stand, surely?

It can then be handled either by 1) extending owl-time to do this kind of thing (and I am quite sure there are many uses for that, in  concert with ssn and coverage at least)
Or 2) extending ssn and coverage to do it in concert with owl-time
Or by 3) recognising that it can be met by owl-time in concert with a little bit of other stuff (that we may or may not choose to deliver)
Or 4) some other ways I have not thought of.

But, I agree, this might actually be best practices requirement rather than an owl-time requirement - it just depends how we handle it!

I strongly suggest we keep it.


>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.


We should indeed  avoid this "rolling together"-do you mean in the ontology?  If so, we can and should  separate into modules that are designed to work together.

Kerry

From: Simon.Cox@csiro.au [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:45 AM
To: frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; allaves@fi.upm.es
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: [ExternalEmail] RE: The 'valid time' requirement


> 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<tel:%2B61%203%209252%206342> | Mob +61 403 302 672<tel:%2B61%20403%20302%20672>
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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl>
disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2015 15:33:33 UTC

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