RE: The 'valid time' requirement

+1

/Lars


From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:18 AM
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au
Cc: frans.knibbe@geodan.nl; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The 'valid time' requirement

+1

On Oct 20, 2015, at 6:13 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto: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]
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