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: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:22:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CABTzy2RVUmgdzfv5JRHxm0vubXQA1Bv7+gp3LEToyjg4n3HVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, Simon.Cox@csiro.au
Cc: Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Here we find again the dilemma of reqs. under the "spatial" scope vs. under
the "spatial data on the Web" scope. And then, we need to re-discuss
whether we deal with reqs. that may be tied to other types of data, see
provenance, data quality, etc.

My position is that the Valid time req. arose from a collection of many UCs
dealing with spatial data on the Web and it is under the scope of the
document (see Methodology
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#Methodology>),
so we should reflect this in the UCR document. -> It is again in the
document as Valid time
<http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#ValidTime>
.

We decided that it makes sense to consider this req. as part of the Best
Practice deliverable, not to the Time Ontology in OWL deliverable. -> Fixed
and ISSUE-16 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/16> closed.

In the near future, we will discuss how to recommend best practices for
assigning a valid time to spatial data on the Web, or maybe the group
decides that there is no need for this.

Cheers,
Alejandro

On 5 June 2015 at 16:10, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

>  +1
>
>
>
> *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
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Friday, 5 June 2015 11:45 PM
> *To:* Alejandro Llaves
> *Cc:* Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton); Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); SDW WG
> Public List
> *Subject:* 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>
>
>


-- 
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, 9 June 2015 16:22:55 UTC

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