Re: UCR issue 26

Hi Jon,

Yes, I think this is about temporal precision. For Gregorian time it is
possible to have different precisions in ISO 8601: 2003-04-27T23:45 is more
precise than 2003-04-27, which is more precise than 2003. I don't think
playing with precision like this is possible with XSD datatypes, especially
when one is limited to xsd:dateTime.

Other temporal reference systems have precision too. For example, in
geological time 'Paleogene' is more precize than 'Cenozoic'.

That would bring me to a requirement like 'It should be possible to make
use of possiblities of temporal reference systems to express time at
various levels of precision'.

Regards,
Frans

2015-10-08 17:38 GMT+02:00 Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>:

> Hi Frans,
>
> I see your point (both examples could be seen as extremely precise,
> depending on our expectations and application).
>
> Maybe instead of calling the requirement “temporal vagueness” it should be
> “temporal precision”, the requirement being to be able to express the
> precision of a time value.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 15:59, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This is a thread for trying to resolve UCR issue 26
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26>. Again, the issue deals
> with clarification of a requirement. In this case it is about the OWL Time
> requirement Temporal vagueness
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TemporalVagueness>
> .
>
> Current phrasing is: *"It should be possible to describe time points and
> intervals in a vague, imprecise manner. For instance, to represent an event
> happened on the afternoon of June 1st or at the second quarter of the 9th
> century."*
>
> The examples seem to be neither vague nor imprecise. Could other examples
> be supplied, or could be explained why the examples are vague and/or
> imprecise?
>
> Especially the time specialists among us: please help in getting this
> requirement in shape.
>
> Greetings,
> Frans
>
>
>
>