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

Re: The 'valid time' requirement

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:59:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFVDz40Vo58y0enO4-fhJ8b7queC-tSt2Ha4QzgupsioaAxX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>
Cc: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Kerry Taylor <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
Hello Alejandro,

I am sorry, but I am not sure the requirement is in scope as a Best
Practices requirement, on the grounds that there is nothing spatial about
the requirement.

if there is a reason to accept this requirement in spite of it seeming to
be out of scope, I think we should at least describe the reason(s) why the
requirement is accepted nontheless.

I suggest reopening  ISSUE-16
<https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/16>.

Greetings,
Frans

2015-06-10 0:43 GMT+02:00 <Kerry.Taylor@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> 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
>
>
>    ------------------------------
>
> *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
>



-- 
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 Wednesday, 10 June 2015 09:00:16 UTC

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