Re: The 'valid time' requirement

2015-06-10 13:29 GMT+02:00 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>:

> Hi-
>
> I am fine with leaving this Requirement associated with the Time
> deliverable. Given that the text of the requirement says:
>
> > It should be possible to represent the time of validity that applies to
> a thing, state or fact.
>
> the implications for the Time deliverable are that "it must be possible to
> represent a time with associated semantics". I like how the Time ontology
> separates the concerns as mentioned by Simon above.
>
> As part of the BP document, we _may_ want discuss how one makes assertions
> about the time-period for which a statement (or collection of statements)
> is 'valid'.
>
> So I am happy that the requirement is associated with both Time and BP
> deliverables.
>

But in what way would such a requirement be in scope for the SDWWG? If we
admit that OWL time is about how to represent time, not about what to do
with representations of time, the requirement is out of scope for OWL time.
And because there is nothing spatial about the requirement it is also out
of scope for the other deliverables.

Regards,
Frans


>
> Jeremy
>
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 at 11:16 Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>