Re: UCR issue 26

Hi Frans,

C&P your proposal:

*'It should be possible to make use of possibilities 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.'**'*

The first sentence sounds too complex to me. I don't get the part of "to
make use of possibilities of temporal reference systems". And "it should be
possible to make use of possibilities" is a bit redundant.

I like the second part with the examples ;) Maybe, it would make more sense
using "to be able to represent/describe" instead of "to be able to handle",
but I can live with both.

Thanks!
Alejandro

On 21 October 2015 at 00:13, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

> Ø  Perhaps a new version of OWL time will be based on the idea that
> instants are actually intervals too?
>
>
>
> OWL-Time does take this position already. It follows Allen’s theory, which
> make intervals the primary structure, and instants a special case where we
> can’t distinguish the beginning and end, at the current level of precision.
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:28 PM
> *To:* Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk>; SDW WG Public List <
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Cc:* Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>



-- 
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