Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Thank you Chris!

It is now my task to update the UCR document. Issue-26 was about the
current requirement possibly being not clear enough (for either the general
public or for the developers of the Time Ontology). In point 9 of your
summary I read that the basic requirement ("It should be possible to
describe time points and intervals in a vague, imprecise manner") should be
left intact. The second part, the examples, could be elaborated. So we get
the following revised requirement text:

"It should be possible to describe time points and intervals in a vague,
imprecise manner, for example:

   - An event happened 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 (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')"

Is it OK if I make this change in the UCR doc?

In your summary you have described how OWL Time addresses this requirement.
In general, I think it would be a very good idea if all SDWWG deliverables
describe how requirements described in the UCR document are met, or are not
or partially met. Do you think a next version of the Time Ontology in OWL
document could have a section explaining just that?

Regards,
Frans





2016-07-07 17:14 GMT+02:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>:

> Hi Frans,
>
>
>
> I have written a substantial, and hopefully, accurate summary of Issue 26,
> and closed it.
>
>
>
> I think all the concerns raised were addressed, if not all adopted.
>
>
>
> There are couple of outstanding documentation tasks:
>
> Official definitions of a Temporal Reference System, etc;
>
> Examples for Issue-15 : using OWL-Time and other predicates to refer to
> and between past, present and future resources
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 2:01 PM
> *To:* Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox;
> Little, Chris; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller; danh.lephuoc@deri.org;
> Bill Roberts; Kerry Taylor
> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* Re: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements
>
>
>
> Dear editors,
>
>
>
> I haven't had much response to my question so far. So as an aid, here is a
> list of the open issues marked in the current UCR draft:
>
>
> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20>
>
> ISSUE-20 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/20> (SSN)
>
> ISSUE-23 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/23> (Best
> Practices)
>
> ISSUE-24 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/24> (SSN)
>
> ISSUE-26 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26> (Time)
>
> ISSUE-28 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/28> (Best
> Practices)
>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if we can resolve these issues before the next and
> final PWD of the UCR document this month?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-06-22 13:12 GMT+02:00 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>:
>
> Dear editors of the BP/Time/SSN/Coverage deliverable,
>
>
>
> In preparation of a next public working draft of the UCR document I would
> like to ask you for feedback on the requirements for your deliverable as
> specified in the UCR document. Section 6
> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#RequirementsByDeliverable>
> list requirements grouped by deliverable. By now you will have stared long
> & hard at those requirements, and perhaps you concluded that some or not
> clear yet, or that something else is wrong. Perhaps requirements or even
> important use cases are missing?
>
>
>
> While we are working on a new batch of publications before TPAC, it would
> be nice if the requirements in the UCR document are (among) the ones you
> are actually working with. I think the public we are writing for deserves
> that coherence. I presume your deliverables will link back to the UCR
> document and explain how requirements are met or why requirements are not
> met. So if you think any changes are required in the UCR document resulting
> from your work on your deliverable, please inform me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frans
>
>
>