Re: ISSUE-15: Past, present and future

Thanks for explaining Chris.

It seems to me that current practices accomodate knowing about relative
past, present and future if some amount of processing is allowed, like in a
SPARQL query. But this is more about making static assertions? So perhaps
this calls for properties like 'isAboutPastEvent', 'isAboutPresentEvent'
and 'isAboutFutureEvent'?

Do you there is a reason to create an additional requirement or to change
an existing requirement? If so, could you venture a proposal?

Regards,
Frans



2015-08-05 14:23 GMT+02:00 Little, Chris <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>:

> Hi Frans,
>
>
>
> I think this requirement, as identified in the tracker comments, is about
> coarse labelling of data.
>
>
>
> There is a subtlety that has to be captured: if an historian is annotating
> a document that was written after the Spanish civil war (both ‘Past’) but
> before another document (‘Past’), that would have been in the ‘Future’ at
> the time.
>
>
>
> The same issue arises in a detailed way with weather forecasts – when
> analysing past weather forecasts, we label things that were future in the
> past. This ability to talk about such things is certainly reflected in lots
> of languages like English and French.
>
>
>
> So I think it is part of logical reasoning about events and having
> appropriate vocabularies and ontologies.
>
>
>
> I do not think that there is a requirement here for detailed temporal CRS
> and calendar stuff.
>
>
>
> HTH, Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 04, 2015 3:14 PM
> *To:* SDW WG Public List
> *Subject:* ISSUE-15: Past, present and future
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Like ISSUE-14, ISSUE-15 <http://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/15>
> did not have its dedicated e-mail thread yet. This message is intended to
> start that thread and the discussion on how to resolve ISSUE-15.
>
>
>
> I am not sure what to make of this prospect requirement...Could anyone try
> to explain what could be meant and whether we should consider adding a new
> requirement or amending an existing requirement?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Frans
>
>
>
> --
>
> Frans Knibbe
>
> Geodan
>
> President Kennedylaan 1
>
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
>
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
>
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
>
> www.geodan.nl
>
> disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
>
>
>



-- 
Frans Knibbe
Geodan
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
www.geodan.nl
disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>