[sdw] Extension for temporal aggregates (#1140)

dr-shorthair has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/sdw:

== Extension for temporal aggregates ==
Moving discussion of this topic from #1139 - 
so far:

**ashepherd commented yesterday**
Hey folks, there's a group of data repositories interested in publishing a temporal extent that expresses a seasonal coverage across multiple years. Rather, they want to express that data was collected in an aggregate of multiple intervals.

The use case for an extension to OWL-Time for this case is driven by search precision and recall. For example if the data were collected in June, July and August across the years 2012 to 2015, a temporal interval extending from 2012 to 2015 would hit as a match for a search looking for data between January 2013 and May 2013 which would be wrong in this case.

In discussions with @dr-shorthair , he recommended a small extension of one class and one property:

time:TemporalAggregate rdf:subClassOf time:TemporalEntity .

time:hasMember a owl:ObjectProperty;

                rdfs:domain time:TemporalAggregate ;

                rdfs:range time:TemporalEntity . 
With this aggregate class, we can express a collection of Temporal entities that explicitly describes the collection activity.

Thoughts?

**dr-shorthair commented yesterday •** 
@ashepherd I'm inclined to make this a separate note to the one on this issue - rather different scope. Wouldn't want one to hold up the other and get conversations too tangled. OTOH we could start by rolling them together and split them only if necessary.

 **kjano commented 20 hours ago**
 Hi Adam,

Just one brief comment. The solution below would not preserve the order
of the aggregates directly (e.g., compared to a list).

Best,
Jano
…
 
 **ashepherd commented 17 hours ago**
 Hi Jano,
I haven’t used OWL-Time extensively. Do you a see a situation where the order would be useful to explicitly state so as not to rely on sorting the date/time values themselves?

Cheers, Adam
…

**elf-pavlik commented 8 hours ago**
@ashepherd I'm inclined to make this a separate note to the one on this issue - rather different scope. Wouldn't want one to hold up the other and get conversations too tangled.

👍 while this draft just fills in some missing relations which don't imply time:ProperInterval, mentioned time:TemporalAggregate sounds like a new feature which can have independent note and process of working on it

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1140 using your GitHub account

Received on Sunday, 21 July 2019 03:30:06 UTC