Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Hello all,

After having discussed this issue in the teleconference of 2015-10-14
<http://www.w3.org/2015/10/14-sdw-minutes>, I would like to suggest a two
step approach to solving the issue. I think two questions need to be
answered in order:

1) Is the requirement in scope for OWL Time deliverable?
2) If the answer to question 1 is 'no', could the requirement be in scope
for the Best Practices deliverable?

Could we try to agree on an answer to question 1 first?

As stated before, my feeling is that OWL Time
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/> is about representation of time, not about
how such representations could be used. I like that definition of scope and
we should not try to broaden it. Separation of concerns is an important
design principle in a modular semantic web.

Are there reasons for answering the first question with 'yes'?

Regards,
Frans

2015-10-20 12:33 GMT+02:00 Mail Delivery Subsystem <
mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>:

> Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
>
>      Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au
>
> Technical details of permanent failure:
> Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server
> for the recipient domain csiro.au by vic-mx.csiro.au. [150.229.64.40].
>
> The error that the other server returned was:
> 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
>
> X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
>         d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
>         h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
>          :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
>         bh=TH+ooNNkDuGgkV2yOrufMVy52mZJXWUXhCG5eRbK4ig=;
>
> b=XRjc9s2n3J9CdoEPhbgpBBsGA2ugyvsJwfSi7xOy87/0ujZq1UX0kh1AA/8rZbzXDU
>
>  FIHkuBuWa8e6T6LWAcXLXw7unn4fZlp3Y1uccCUtadmsEwl8pgEMfqTLhm+LKZKW/me9
>
>  MPm2faMQfXgUAwJAov+aDIHyErqzTDvCJTc+bDTRMkP324lWW78xtI7A1GwRAW4p6D0W
>
>  x2SEH5oGqw7C1uI7t+ucNwcDufmbWcsq53p9Bc27lWCZj65TN/HeYnaVBSvTG99s/2MU
>
>  4JfhlJXjuF02tD+YuJbGvrReFecwdp5mzPFVyXXGYBvpH0sJIRkJZjwtfdODTS8HHISv
>          W8fA==
> X-Gm-Message-State:
> ALoCoQmch3lO80JK5w0i6KmOhzTRbYW7QzV1Hpxgk7oKa6MS12IRGOuXQxQz7tfc0ZhL9zWEqyxr
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Received: by 10.140.164.140 with SMTP id
> k134mr2881600qhk.40.1445337234395;
>  Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: by 10.55.120.195 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <
> CADtUq_3OBfvxO6M9Z1RWoj_qw33Zs9mo7+yGnuSg04WwVALGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
> References: <
> CAFVDz41CnrxKKPpc9o1AUrf5FPBY1_eJygrns6rCFdo0B0M49Q@mail.gmail.com>
>         <
> 2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A6020477E@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>         <
> 3CD3C8BBF0D87B4D8154C3978732049C50F4730F@exmbx05-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>         <
> 2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A6020BA60@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>         <C895BFD6-1D7D-4766-A19D-2DD7763A7D79@csiro.au>
>         <
> CABTzy2SV_FUk-FiN4Ws0Rj9fyxzZYVYaLkM4K4jWhXECBAxozQ@mail.gmail.com>
>         <CAFVDz40=ag8NxgYrcbcUfB4uZPsP3SwWg3C4StDOYwMWb8V=
> yA@mail.gmail.com>
>         <
> 2A7346E8D9F62D4CA8D78387173A054A6020EF4E@exmbx04-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>         <
> CABTzy2RVUmgdzfv5JRHxm0vubXQA1Bv7+gp3LEToyjg4n3HVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
>         <
> 3CD3C8BBF0D87B4D8154C3978732049C50F50E11@exmbx05-cdc.nexus.csiro.au>
>         <
> CAFVDz40Vo58y0enO4-fhJ8b7queC-tSt2Ha4QzgupsioaAxX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
>         <
> CABTzy2QqMM1dCDcc8qw6dB9uZSVN2bk6wssxOmfGw-J7e-HUfw@mail.gmail.com>
>         <
> CADtUq_3OBfvxO6M9Z1RWoj_qw33Zs9mo7+yGnuSg04WwVALGzQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:33:54 +0200
> Message-ID: <CAFVDz42WasJhyTiKOa+UrrTU700=
> AkYfC-L8VCtw+rB9Lk9h2g@mail.gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: The 'valid time' requirement
> From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
> To: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
> Cc: Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>,
>         SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Kerry Taylor
> <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134f6c6701e16052286cc89
>
> 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.
>
> ----- Message truncated -----
>
>