Re: The 'valid time' requirement

+1

> On Oct 20, 2015, at 6:13 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> 
> I believe that the discussion so far points towards  
> 1)      No
> 2)      Yes
>  
> From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2015 9:49 PM
> To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
> Subject: 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