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

RE: The 'valid time' requirement

From: <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 22:43:51 +0000
To: <allaves@fi.upm.es>, <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3CD3C8BBF0D87B4D8154C3978732049C50F50E11@exmbx05-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
All good. But, as a minor comment, I don’t think it is a problem if it is a time requirement. There is nothing to stops us making a little ontology that models valid time, and recommending it under the “time” banner, without actually having it as an inseparable part of the owl-time ontology, AFAIK.


But Its also ok as you have it now!

Kerry
From: Alejandro Llaves [mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2015 2:22 AM
To: Frans Knibbe; Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett)
Cc: Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton); SDW WG Public List
Subject: Re: The 'valid time' requirement

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<mailto: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<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://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox


________________________________
From: Frans Knibbe [frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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://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<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; allaves@fi.upm.es<mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto: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> [mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 11:45 AM
To: frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>; allaves@fi.upm.es<mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://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<tel:%2B31%20%280%2920%20-%205711%20347>
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
www.geodan.nl<http://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<mailto:allaves@fi.upm.es>
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 22:44:55 UTC

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