W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: [Minutes] 2016-02-03

From: Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:01:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFVDz41Fr6k1Fa4Un9scez8BhvDc1HHFQW7sjNjdK9SUzhU4xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Cox <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
Cc: Chris Little <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Thank you Josh and Simon for your comments. If I understand correctly,
there is no reason to change the phrasing of this proposed new requirement.
And the OWL Time people will know how to work with the requirement. So I
think it is finally time to put it to a vote.

Regards,
Frans

2016-03-20 3:35 GMT+01:00 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>:

> OWL Time is an implementation of Allen calculus, therefore focussed
> exactly on interval and event ordering. So AFAICT the ordering requirement
> is already dealt with. The requirements were written down as-is without any
> specific consideration of whether they were already accommodated by the
> prototype. That is as it should be, but I don’t think this requirement
> leads to any new work in the Time ontology related to ordering.
>
>
>
> However, as Josh points out, the Time ontology does not include any
> predicates to link the time resources to objects/entities/features, or to
> web-resources. I guess we should consider whether these could be
> standardized at all.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 19 March 2016 12:31 AM
> *To:* Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>; Cox, Simon (L&W,
> Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> *Cc:* Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es>; SDW WG Public List <
> public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Minutes] 2016-02-03
>
>
>
> Hello Chris, Simon,
>
>
>
> Chris's comment on issue 15 seems important, that is why I would like to
> ask for Simon's thoughts before I change the UCR document. There is problem
> with expressing that "a web resource is in the past, present or future with
> respect to another web resource". But is the problem that it is currently
> not possible with OWL Time? Or is the problem that it is difficult to use
> because of sparse documentation, lack of examples and/or the spec being to
> abstract and mathematical? We could introduce a new requirement anyway, but
> the way it is phrased should depend on the answer of that question. And I
> would not want to insinuate that something is not possible with OWL Time
> while in fact it is.
>
>
>
> As for issue 26, it seems the August 2020 example is inappropriate, since
> it can be expressed as xsd:gYearMonth. So I think we should not mention
> that example.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
> 2016-03-02 18:08 GMT+01:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>:
>
> Hello Frans,
>
>
>
> I think your précis of the issues is spot-on.
>
>
>
> Issue 26
>
> I can only add to the last example that “August 2020” can be expressed in
> ISO8601, as the standard allows truncation from the right, but not the left
> (I.e 2020-08 is valid, but 12-25 for an unknown Christmas Day is not.) I am
> not sure about XSD without rummaging around.
>
>
>
> For Issue 15, I would like to see some concrete examples as to how one
> would use the existing OWL Time to relate some resources, in whatever
> syntax is appropriate. At present, it is rather abstract and mathematical
> in my head.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:04 AM
> *To:* Little, Chris
> *Cc:* Alejandro Llaves; SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* 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
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 March 2016 14:02:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:20 UTC