Re: The 'valid time' requirement

2015-10-22 8:36 GMT+02:00 Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>:

> Frans,
>
> On: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 2:57 PM, Frans Knibbe wrote:
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> So your proposal would be to delegate this to the Data on the Web WG?
>

Poor Data on the Web WG ... they have to solve a lot of problems. But yes,
in general what we could do is to bring the matter to the attention of
other communities that do have this in scope.

The community behind the DCMI metadata terms
<http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/> could also be a good target.
It has the definition of dcterms:valid
<http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-valid>, which can be
used to indicate the temporal validity of data. Unfortunately, it is
restricted to dates. What we probably want is make use of other expressions
of time to indicate the interval in which something is valid, and to be
able to use temporal functions (Allen's algebra) on validity intervals. So
once OWL Time gets updated to allow more freedom in expressions of time, it
would be great if the DCMI had a 'valid' property with a liberal time
range, for which OWL Time based expressions can be used.

Perhaps the task of encouraging use of the new OWL Time vocabulary in other
vocabularies could be considered something (a requirement) for the OWL Time
deliverable?

Greetings,
Frans



>
> Best,
>
> Lars
>
>