Re: The 'valid time' requirement

Hello,

I agree with Simon that modularity and separation of concerns are very
valuable design principles, and I am glad to see them honoured in the way
the Time Ontology is set up. And yes, the same principles should be used
for (futher) development of any spatial semantics.

If we decide to keep this requirement as a Time Ontology requirement,
doesn't it actually say that the Time Ontology should abandon the desing
principle of separation of concerns?

We could unlink the requirement from the time deliverable and link it to
the best practices deliverable instead, but in that case I think it would
not be in scope because the problem is not spatial, it applies to all kinds
of data.

By the way, this issue has been added to the tracker: ISSUE-16
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/16>

Regards,
Frans



2015-06-05 11:37 GMT+02:00 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>:

> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
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>