RE: Wanted: feedback on UCR requirements

Frans,

I am happy with the change to UCR document.

I think we will need to add some explanatory examples to the next version of the Time Ontology, and the hooks are there in the document (Issues and Notes )

Chris

From: Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 5:21 PM
To: Little, Chris
Cc: Jeremy Tandy; Linda van den Brink; Payam Barnaghi; Simon Cox; Krzysztof Janowicz; Armin Haller; danh.lephuoc@deri.org; Bill Roberts; Kerry Taylor; SDW WG Public List
Subject: 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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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