Re: The 'valid time' requirement

So far no one seems to think that the requirement is in scope for the OWL
Time deliverable. Good, that simplifies matters.

As for the second question (is the requirement in scope for the Best
Practices deliverable?), people have so far indicated a 'yes' as answer. I
am sorry to have to go against the stream, but I strongly feel that the
answer should be 'no'. My reasoning is as follows:

*Short version:* There is nothing inherently spatial about the requirement,
therefore it does not pass the scope filter.

*Long version:* I think the requirement is an example of more candidate
requirements that do not follow from the nature of spatial data, but from
the way many people want to use spatial data on the web. Many significant
spatial data come from professional domains, for example research or
government. Of course serious, professional data need to meet high quality
standards. Those data have a high likelihood of being reused in analyses or
in enrichment or creation of other data.

That means the data should have rich annotations/metadata. For example,
numeric data should have an indication of uncertainty, data should have
provenance information, data should have clear semantics and yes, data
should have an indication of temporal validity, where possible. But all
those things are important for professional data in general. The fact that
many professional data have spatial aspects does mean these things are
unique to spatial data. And I really think it is a bad idea to pull all
those subjects into our spatial arena.

I think the spatial scope limitation for requirements is a very just one
and should not be disregarded easily. It guards us against taking on too
much of all the things that can be done towards improving data on the web.
The danger of taking on too much is that we won't have the capacity to
actually make serious improvements, our capacities will be spread too thin
and our efforts will lack focus. Moreover, we have expertise on spatial
matters, but making decisions on subjects that have an application that is
not uniquely spatial should probably involve other experts too. So I think
that conscientiously focussing on things that are really spatial will help
our group to reach meaningful results.

Regards,
Frans

2015-10-21 12:19 GMT+02:00 <allaves@fi.upm.es>:

> +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.
>>
>
>
>
>