Re: [Minutes] 2016-02-03

Hello Chris,

Thank you for taking action. We should now look into if and how resolving
the issues leads to changes to the UCR doc.

We are facing the following decisions:

On issue-15 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15>. A new
requirement for the OWL Time deliverable will be added to the UCR document:
"*It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past,
present or future with respect to another web resource*".  Does this make
sense in light of OWL Time already supporting this functionality (see the
last messages in this e-mail thread
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Aug/0003.html>)?

On issue-26 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26>. It seems we
should keep the basic requirement as it is ("*It should be possible to
describe time points and intervals in a vague, imprecise manner.*"). A more
extensive list of examples should be supplied to illustrate what we mean by
that. Examples to list are:

   - An event happend at the second quarter of the 9th century (the
   calendar used for this fact is unknown)
   - Something occured in the afternoon of july 1st, 2011 (the time
   interval 'afternoon' is not precisely defined)
   - A photo is known to be taken on a Christmas day, but the year is
   unknown.
   - An event took place in the later part of the Jurassic (with 'later
   part' being imprecise, as opposed to 'Late Jurassic')
   - Something is known to take place somewhere in August 2020 (only year
   and month are known, which is difficult to express in ISO-8601 or standard
   XSD datatypes)

Do you agree with the requirement and the examples?

Regards,
Frans



2016-02-04 13:34 GMT+01:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>:

> Dear Frans and Alejandro
>
> I noticed that two issues against my name were still open:
>
> Issue-15 Time req. not clear - represent past, present and future
> Issue-26 Clarification of temporal vagueness
>
> Last year, you kindly led us into some extended discussion and clarified
> the requirements into something more substantial.
>
> I tried to summarise the outcomes in the tracker Notes (it took me a while
> to remember how to do things).
>
> I have now put both Issues into Pending review. Do you, or anyone else,
> have any objection to closing them?
>
> The only outstanding item from the threads was for me to add some
> terminology and definition to the Glossary, which I will do, as we agreed
> the terminology was diverse and potentially confusing.
>
> Best wishes, Chris
>