Re: OWL-Time - ISSUE-65: General purpose temporal predicates

Doesn’t that depend on what a Temporal Entity “is”. The ISO - OGC feature-geometry disjunction is based on Geometry being a model property for a Feature (Spatial Thing), not the Feature itself. It seems to me that this could have a parallel in OWL-Time, with Temporal Entity being the thing with an extent in time, and Duration or TimePosition being a model property for that Entity. If that parallel is valid, then it wouldn’t be inconsistent to say that a Feature is-also-a Temporal Entity if it has a Duration or TimePosition model property.

Josh

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 8:16 PM, simon.cox@csiro.au wrote:
> 
> The primary goal of OWL-Time is to implement Allen’s temporal relations in OWL, so all the OWL-Time predicates have Temporal classes as both domain and range. For example, ‘hasBeginning’ relates a temporal entity to a temporal instant. This means that attaching timing information to any event or activity using one of these predicates implies that it _is_ a “Temporal Entity”. This would be inconsistent with the approach used in the OGC/ISO Feature Model for associating geometry with a feature, in which feature types are _nt_ subclassed from geometries, but have associations with geometries. At least that would be the argument if time is treated the same as geometry.
>  
> As there appears to be interest in standard predicates to associate timing information to events or activities, we have a problem. One solution (ISSUE-64) would be to relax the global domain constraints on the existing predicates. Alternatively, we can create some general purpose object properties, such as the following:
>  
> :activityBeginning
>   rdfs:comment "Beginning of an event or activity."@en ;
>   rdfs:range :Instant ;
> .
> :activityDuration
>   rdfs:comment "Duration of an event or activity, expressed as a scaled value"@en ;
>   rdfs:range :Duration ;
> .
> :activityDurationDescription
>   rdfs:comment "Duration of an event or activity, expressed using a structured description"@en ;
>   rdfs:range :GeneralDurationDescription ;
> .
> :activityEnd
>   rdfs:comment "End of an event or activity."@en ;
>   rdfs:range :Instant ;
> .
> :activityTime
>   rdfs:comment "Supports the assignment of a temporal entity (instant or interval) with an event or activity"@en ;
>  rdfs:range :TemporalEntity ;
> .
>  
> The slightly awkward names are because hasBeginning, hasDuration etc are already in use.
> Not at all wedded to activity*. Could be event* or something else if anyone has any smart ideas.
>  
> I’ve added these to the branch here:
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/simon-time-predicates/time/rdf/time.ttl <https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/simon-time-predicates/time/rdf/time.ttl>
>  
> OTOH, some upper-level ontologies make a fundamental distinction between time-bounded entities (occurrent or perdurant) and non-time-bounded entities (continuant or endurant). If we accept this viewpoint, then we might just use the original OWL-Time predicates and accept the entailment.  I guess it depends which fundamental commitment we are willing to make.
>  
> Simon 
>  
> Simon J D Cox
> Research Scientist
> Environmental Informatics
> CSIRO Land and Water <http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>
>  
> E simon.cox@csiro.au <mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
>    Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
>    Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168
>    Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
> people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox <http://people.csiro.au/Simon-Cox>
> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420>
> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3 <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3>
> github.com/dr-shorthair <https://github.com/dr-shorthair>
>  
> PLEASE NOTE
> The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. 
>  
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.