ISSUE-16: Time req. out of scope - Valid time
allaves
Time req. out of scope - Valid time
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Use Cases and Requirements
- Raised by:
- Alejandro Llaves
- Opened on:
- 2015-06-03
- Description:
- The Valid time requirement is considered out of scope for the Time deliverable: "It should be possible to represent the time of validity that applies to a thing, state or fact."
However, the group has shown interest in defining the time of validity of certain spatial data on the Web, e.g. to state that a subset of sensor time series is not valid (due to an error detected in the sensor), that a satellite image is valid for a specific period of time, or to describe the validity of administrative boundaries. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-19)
- Re: SDW Next Meeting (from Kerry.Taylor@acm.org on 2015-11-18)
- Re: sdwwg: meeting this week (from jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com on 2015-11-11)
- [Minutes] 2015-11-11 (from phila@w3.org on 2015-11-11)
- RE: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk on 2015-11-11)
- Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-11)
- Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-11)
- RE: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk on 2015-11-11)
- Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-11)
- Re: sdwwg: meeting this week (from matthew.perry@oracle.com on 2015-11-11)
- Re: sdwwg: meeting this week (from jeremy.tandy@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
- RE: sdwwg: meeting this week (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2015-11-11)
- Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' issue-16 (from Kerry.Taylor@acm.org on 2015-11-11)
- sdwwg: meeting this week (from kerry.taylor@acm.org on 2015-11-10)
- Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-10-20)
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-10-20)
- Re: Frozen copy? (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-06-10)
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from jeremy.tandy@gmail.com on 2015-06-10)
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from allaves@fi.upm.es on 2015-06-10)
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-06-10)
- RE: The 'valid time' requirement (from Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au on 2015-06-09)
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from allaves@fi.upm.es on 2015-06-09)
- RE: The 'valid time' requirement (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2015-06-05)
- Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-06-05)
Related notes:
Related discussion: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2015Jun/0007.html
Frans Knibbe, 5 Jun 2015, 13:36:43Requirement re-assigned to the Best Practice deliverable.
Alejandro Llaves, 9 Jun 2015, 16:17:39Requirement re-assigned to the Best Practice deliverable.
Alejandro Llaves, 9 Jun 2015, 16:18:05Still not clear whether this is a (Best Practice) requirement under the scope of the group.
Alejandro Llaves, 10 Jun 2015, 10:13:13Proposal to rephrase the valid time requirement to
"Ensure alignment with existing methods for expressing the time
in which data are valid (e.g.
[12]http://purl.org/dc/terms/valid)." and keep it as a
requirement for OWL Time WP was accepted during the meeting on 2015-11-28
Display change log