ISSUE-15: Time req. not clear - represent past, present and future

Proposed phrasing for a new requirement:

"It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource"

We have established that the current version of OWL Time already meets the proposed requirement ("It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource"). Therefore it is questionable whether this requirement should be added.

[frans]: time

This Issue was resolved into two requirements:

1. "It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource". this was followed up in Action-70 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/70 .

2. A reqirement to label events as being in the future compared to the context, as some form of prediction. That future time may have passed, and now be in the past.

This Issue was resolved into two requirements:

1. "It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource". this was followed up in Action-70 https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/70 .

2. A reqirement to label events as being in the future compared to the context, as some form of prediction. That future time may have passed, and now be in the past.

The propesed new requirement for the OWL Time deliverable remains

"It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource"

Porposal: we keep the basic requirement as it is ("It should be possible to describe time points and intervals in a vague, imprecise manner."). A more extensive list of examples will be supplied to illustrate what we mean by that. Examples to list are:
- An event happend at the second quarter of the 9th century (the calendar used for this fact is unknown)
- Something occured in the afternoon of july 1st, 2011 (the time interval 'afternoon' is not precisely defined)
- A photo is known to be taken on a Christmas day, but the year is unknown.
- An event took place in the later part of the Jurassic (with 'later part' being imprecise, as opposed to 'Late Jurassic')

Issue-15. A new requirement for the OWL-Time deliverable will be added to the
UCR document:

"*It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource*".

The OWL-Time ontology already supports this functionality, so no change. It does not include any predicates to link the time resources to objects/entities/features, or web-resources.

Some predicates could be defined to give some concrete examples as to how one would use OWL-Time to relate some resources, in any appropriate syntax, but it is probably inappropriate to standardize them.

Issue-15. A new requirement for the OWL-Time deliverable will be added to the
UCR document:

"*It should be possible to declare that a web resource is in the past, present or future with respect to another web resource*".

The OWL-Time ontology already supports this functionality, so no change. The ontology does not include any predicates to link the time resources to objects/entities/features, or web-resources.

Some predicates could be defined to give some concrete examples as to how one would use OWL-Time to relate some resources, in any appropriate syntax, but it is probably inappropriate to standardize them.

Closed since all detailed reviews indicate that the requirement is met by the ontology