- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:31:21 -0700
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, rgarcia@fi.upm.es, maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
See https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_in_SOSA_and_SSN On 04/04/2017 11:26 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote: > Raul, okay, lets propose this today and see how it flies. My only > objection is that this will require an understanding of OWL-Time by > SOSA users (and maybe this is not really an issue if we provide > examples). > > > On 04/03/2017 02:46 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: >>> I see no significant hurdle in stating >> :Obs293 sosa:resultTime [time:inXSDDateTime >> "2002-10-10T12:00:00"] >> Actually :inXSDDateTime is deprecated in favour of >> :inXSDDateTimeStamp (which makes the timezone mandatory). >> >> Simon J D Cox >> Research Scientist >> Land and Water >> CSIRO >> E simon.cox@csiro.au T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672 >> Physical: Reception Central, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Vic 3168 >> Deliveries: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168 >> Postal: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169 >> people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox >> orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-3420 >> researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Cox3 >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> >> Sent: Saturday, 1 April 2017 7:00 PM >> To: Raúl García Castro; janowicz@ucsb.edu; Maxime Lefrançois; SDW WG >> Public List >> Subject: Re: Using rdf:Property class for properties whose URI >> contains string "time" >> >> I tend to agree with Raúl. If one of them is already an object >> property, it does not really make the use of the SOSA core more >> difficult if we also make sosa:resultTime an object property. That >> also solves the problem with the sub-property alignment of >> ssn:observationResultTime. >> >> On 29/3/17, 1:57 pm, "Raúl García Castro" <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Yes, my proposal was to reuse the sosa properties in ssn. >> However, I >> still see the need for consistently reusing the time ontology (also >> standardised in this same group) in all the temporal properties and >> declaring all of them as object properties. >> >> I see no significant hurdle in stating >> :Obs293 sosa:resultTime [time:inXSDDateTime >> "2002-10-10T12:00:00"] >> instead of >> :Obs293 sosa:resultTime "2002-10-10T12:00:00" >> >> And allows practitioners (or people reusing their data) to >> exploit the >> representational capabilities of the time ontology and further >> describe >> the time instant (e.g., stating that it is inside a time >> interval or >> defining the instant with a greater granularity with the >> DateTimeDescription class). >> >> In summary, when we take a decision on this, I'd like to see an >> option >> that goes along this line. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> El 29/3/17 a las 0:23, Krzysztof Janowicz escribió: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Yes, but as I tried to describe on the wiki page[1], this is >> for good >> > reasons and we discussed them a few times several months ago. >> > PhenomenonTime needs to be able to deal with more complex inputs. >> > >> > The problem that I was trying to explain was that the >> currently proposed >> > alignment axiom 'ssn:observationResultTime rdfs:subPropertyOf >> > sosa:resultTime' is not in OWL2 DL as one is a >> DataTypeProperty and the >> > other one is an ObjectTypeProperty. >> > >> > The second case 'ssn:observationSamplingTime >> owl:equivalentProperty >> > sosa:phenomenonTime. ' is simple because both are object type >> properties >> > and equivalent anyway. >> > >> > I liked Raul's proposal (if I understood it correctly) to >> deprecate >> > observationResultTime and observationSamplingTime and then >> reuse the >> > sosa properties resultTime and phenomenonTime in ssn without >> the need to >> > do anything in addition. >> > >> > Best, >> > Jano >> > >> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Time_in_SOSA_and_SSN >> > On 03/28/2017 03:14 PM, Maxime Lefrançois wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> If I took the minutes correctly today, some of the properties >> whose >> >> URI contains string "time" are object properties and other are >> >> datatype properties, so that's not really consistent. >> >> >> >> It has been proposed to declare them as instances of >> rdf:Property >> >> instead of having to choose between ObjectProperty and >> DatatypeProperty. >> >> >> >> This could be interesting, these are the side effects I can >> think of now: >> >> - we would need to assert these properties are instances of >> >> AnnotationProperty, else the ontology would not be OWL DL; >> >> - no ontology that extends SSN can assert it's also a >> ObjectProperty >> >> or a DatatypeProperty; >> >> - one cannot make this property be involved in a OWL logical >> axiom in >> >> any possible way, apart from rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and >> >> rdfs:subPropertyOf; >> >> - still, people can create non-OWL rules ()e.g., SPARQL >> Construct or >> >> SPIN rules) that can generate new knowledge out of some >> pattern that >> >> involves this property. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Maxime >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Krzysztof Janowicz >> > >> > Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara >> > 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 >> > >> > Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu >> > Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ >> > Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Raúl García Castro >> http://www.garcia-castro.com/ >> >> Ontology Engineering Group >> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial >> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos >> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid >> Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid >> Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19 >> >> >> > > -- Krzysztof Janowicz Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 18:31:57 UTC