Re: UCR issue 26

2015-10-20 14:09 GMT+02:00 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>:

> Hi Frans
>
>
>
> Just one change: it will be safer to use "later part of the Jurassic"
>  rather than "late Jurassic" as an example because "Late Jurassic" (capital
> L) is a formally defined and dated geological epoch.
>
>
>
> The phrase "late Jurassic"  (lower case l)  could potentially be used in
> literature to denote a vaguer interval than the formal one, so it’s a valid
> example, but it would usually be phrased differently so as not to be
> ambiguous, and without all this explanation it would make our example
> ambiguous too !
>

A good point! Thank you. I will use the phrase  "later part of the
Jurassic".

Regards,
Frans

>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* 20 October 2015 12:28
> *To:* Heaven, Rachel E.; SDW WG Public List
> *Cc:* Jon Blower
>
> *Subject:* Re: UCR issue 26
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The photo from Christmas day is a nice example. I think we should add a
> few examples to this requirement and the Christmas day photo should be one
> of those.
>
>
>
> So here is a new proposal:
>
>
>
> *'It should be possible to make use of possiblities of temporal reference
> systems to express components of time at various levels of precision.*
>
>
>
> *This requirement expresses the need to be able to handle vague, imprecise
> or uncertain time. Some examples are "early 1950s", "late Jurassic",
> "during the reign of Khafra", "the afternoon of July 1st". It should be
> noted that uncertainty in time does not need to be restricted to the
> highest precision time component in an expression of time. For instance, a
> photograph might be known to be taken on Christmas day, but the year in
> which the photograph was taken could be uncertain.'*
>
>
>
> I did change ''..express time" to "...express components of time", but
> here the distinction between intervals and instants from Rachel's proposal
> is not made. I am not sure such a distinction is necessary. Perhaps a new
> version of OWL time will be based on the idea that instants are actually
> intervals too?
>
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-10-09 17:52 GMT+02:00 Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>:
>
> The vagueness (e.g. “before 1972” or “early 1950s”, or even “the end of
> the Jurassic”) can usually be expressed by an interval with a different
> precision on each end, or an undefined start or end.  “Afternoon of June
> 1st” is an interval with a precise start time and a less precise end,
> depending on culture and season...
>
>
>
> Then there are the other examples where one component of the date might be
> known very precisely (a photo from Christmas day), but the year is known
> with less certainty.
>
>
>
> So perhaps:
>
> 'It should be possible to make use of possibilities of temporal reference
> systems to express components of time instants and components of time
> intervals at various levels of precision'.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* 09 October 2015 14:25
> *To:* Jon Blower
> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
> an electronic records management system.
> ------------------------------
>