RE: issue-145 ssn time

?  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

-Kerry