Re: The 'valid time' requirement

Sure! It is re-opened now.

Alejandro

On 10 June 2015 at 10:59, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> 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>
>
>


-- 
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