Re: The 'valid time' requirement

+1 to Simon-Jeremy's proposal

Alejandro


Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> escribió:

> +1 from me too.
>
> Andrea
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 to Simon's suggestion:
>>
>> 1) No ... 'valid time' is not in the scope of OWL Time (or it's extended
>> counterpart along the lines suggested by Simon)
>> 2) Yes ... the BP should attempt to say unambiguously "this is how you
>> indicate a period for which {this assertion (set)} is valid"; if we can't
>> find something to suit already and we need to make a small
>> 'micro-vocabulary' and publish this in the W3C namespace along with an
>> accompanying note then that's what we need to do
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 at 07:23 Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> +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 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>
>>> Subject: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> After having discussed this issue in the teleconference of 2015-10-14, 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 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
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 10:19:38 UTC