Re: UCR issue 26

Hi all

Sorry to perhaps re-open a much older discussion - but while I appreciate
the importance of specifying temporal aspects of spatial data, tackling the
fundamentals of 'temporal data on the web' feels like it ought to be beyond
our scope.  Is no-one else addressing this under the general Data on the
Web umbrella?  We need it, and if no other group has solved it then I
suppose we have to - but it feels like something that has much broader
applicability than in our working group.

Cheers

Bill

On 14 October 2015 at 06:25, Alejandro Llaves <allaves@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Hi Frans,
>
> IMO, the two examples included in the current description of the vagueness
> requirement are fair examples of vague and imprecise temporal descriptions
> (added after a group's discussion, if I remember correctly). As Rachel
> said, "afternoon of June 1st" may have different interpretations on the
> ending time, not to mention that the year is missing. In the case of
> "second quarter of the 9th century", there is no reference to the calendar
> used; and depending on the event granularity, e.g. an earthquake or a war,
> 25 years may be more or less imprecise.
>
> Cheers,
> Alejandro
>
> On 9 October 2015 at 17:52, Heaven, Rachel E. <reh@bgs.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> The vagueness (e.g. “before 1972” or “early 1950s”, or even “the end of
>> the Jurassic”) can usually be expressed by an interval with a different
>> precision on each end, or an undefined start or end.  “Afternoon of June
>> 1st” is an interval with a precise start time and a less precise end,
>> depending on culture and season...
>>
>>
>>
>> Then there are the other examples where one component of the date might
>> be known very precisely (a photo from Christmas day), but the year is known
>> with less certainty.
>>
>>
>>
>> So perhaps:
>>
>> 'It should be possible to make use of possibilities of temporal reference
>> systems to express components of time instants and components of time
>> intervals at various levels of precision'.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rachel
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Frans Knibbe [mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl]
>> *Sent:* 09 October 2015 14:25
>> *To:* Jon Blower
>> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List
>> *Subject:* Re: UCR issue 26
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think this is about temporal precision. For Gregorian time it is
>> possible to have different precisions in ISO 8601: 2003-04-27T23:45 is more
>> precise than 2003-04-27, which is more precise than 2003. I don't think
>> playing with precision like this is possible with XSD datatypes, especially
>> when one is limited to xsd:dateTime.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other temporal reference systems have precision too. For example, in
>> geological time 'Paleogene' is more precize than 'Cenozoic'.
>>
>>
>>
>> That would bring me to a requirement like 'It should be possible to make
>> use of possiblities of temporal reference systems to express time at
>> various levels of precision'.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-10-08 17:38 GMT+02:00 Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk>:
>>
>> Hi Frans,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see your point (both examples could be seen as extremely precise,
>> depending on our expectations and application).
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe instead of calling the requirement “temporal vagueness” it should
>> be “temporal precision”, the requirement being to be able to express the
>> precision of a time value.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 Oct 2015, at 15:59, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a thread for trying to resolve UCR issue 26
>> <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/26>. Again, the issue
>> deals with clarification of a requirement. In this case it is about the OWL
>> Time requirement Temporal vagueness
>> <http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#TemporalVagueness>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> Current phrasing is: *"It should be possible to describe time points and
>> intervals in a vague, imprecise manner. For instance, to represent an event
>> happened on the afternoon of June 1st or at the second quarter of the 9th
>> century."*
>>
>>
>>
>> The examples seem to be neither vague nor imprecise. Could other examples
>> be supplied, or could be explained why the examples are vague and/or
>> imprecise?
>>
>>
>>
>> Especially the time specialists among us: please help in getting this
>> requirement in shape.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is
>> subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this
>> email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt
>> from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in
>> an electronic records management system.
>>
>> --
>> Alejandro Llaves
>>
>> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>>
>> Artificial Intelligence Department
>>
>> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
>>
>> Avda. Montepríncipe s/n
>>
>> Boadilla del Monte, 28660 Madrid, Spain
>>
>>
>> http://www.oeg-upm.net/index.php/phd/325-allaves
>>
>>
>> allaves@fi.upm.es
>>
>>