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

Re: The 'valid time' requirement

From: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:37:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CABTzy2SV_FUk-FiN4Ws0Rj9fyxzZYVYaLkM4K4jWhXECBAxozQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Cc: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Ok, I will add it again as a Best Practice req.

Cheers,
Alejandro
El 5/6/2015 9:11 a. m., <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> escribió:

>
>
>  Agreed! but the valid time ucr requirement should stay in  either way!
>
> On 5 Jun 2015, at 7:04 am, "Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett)" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> wrote:
>
>   Yes - it would be smart to separate any Spatial schema/ontology that
> describes spatial position, shapes, etc, from the predicates that are used
> to tie these to features or objects that use them. That is implicitly the
> strategy currently provided by OWL-Time for time. This way the 'best
> practice' can urge people to use one of the Spatial schemas/ontologies, or
> at least nominate a small number, but without tying people down for ever
> from using something better if it comes along! Clear boundaries between the
> pieces of the architecture.
>
>
>
> *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://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox
>  <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox>
>  <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox>
> <http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> *Sent:* Thursday, 4 June 2015 1:32 AM
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; allaves@fi.upm.es
> *Cc:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: The 'valid time' requirement
>
>   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 <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 *| *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>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 June 2015 09:38:09 UTC

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