? either that or align with QB4ST and/or owlTime For the latter, there are at least a couple of options: 1. use OWL-Time :TemporalEntity or a sub-class as the range of SSN properties (or in a local restriction) - that gets you begin, end, duration etc 2. replace ssn-specific properties with generalized OWL-Time properties - in which case we need some attention to ISSUE-65 in OWL-Time https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/65 and see the subsequent discussion in particular https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jan/0018.html Simon From: Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au] Sent: Saturday, 4 February, 2017 16:42 To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org Subject: issue-145 ssn time Raul notes in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Dec/0181.html * ssn:startTime and ssn:endTime >> They are not documented in the ontology with rdfs:comment (it happens in others such as observedBy). And the link that appears in the description is "broken" (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SSN_Base#Time). >> They are not used in any of the other entities in the ontology; should we remove them? I agree --- either that or align with QB4ST and/or owlTime. I prefer removing as I cannot find anybody using them and (can someone else confirm please)?, not even in the ssn examples. If I recall they are intended to be used as part of the deployment (the period in which a sensor was in some deployment)., but I suppose they can be used for other things to - just generally useful subclasses of dul:Region. I will populate the comment field but await a decision on removal or whatever. Btw - they should be "deprecated' in preference to deletion. Raised issue-145 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/145 -KerryReceived on Monday, 6 February 2017 00:20:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 6 February 2017 00:20:52 UTC