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:
  1. Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-19)
  2. Re: SDW Next Meeting (from Kerry.Taylor@acm.org on 2015-11-18)
  3. Re: sdwwg: meeting this week (from jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com on 2015-11-11)
  4. [Minutes] 2015-11-11 (from phila@w3.org on 2015-11-11)
  5. RE: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk on 2015-11-11)
  6. Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-11)
  7. Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-11)
  8. RE: Requirement for 'Valid Time' Issue-16 (from chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk on 2015-11-11)
  9. Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-11-11)
  10. Re: sdwwg: meeting this week (from matthew.perry@oracle.com on 2015-11-11)
  11. Re: sdwwg: meeting this week (from jeremy.tandy@gmail.com on 2015-11-11)
  12. RE: sdwwg: meeting this week (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2015-11-11)
  13. Re: Requirement for 'Valid Time' issue-16 (from Kerry.Taylor@acm.org on 2015-11-11)
  14. sdwwg: meeting this week (from kerry.taylor@acm.org on 2015-11-10)
  15. Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-10-20)
  16. Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-10-20)
  17. Re: Frozen copy? (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-06-10)
  18. Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from jeremy.tandy@gmail.com on 2015-06-10)
  19. Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from allaves@fi.upm.es on 2015-06-10)
  20. Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from frans.knibbe@geodan.nl on 2015-06-10)
  21. RE: The 'valid time' requirement (from Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au on 2015-06-09)
  22. Re: The 'valid time' requirement (from allaves@fi.upm.es on 2015-06-09)
  23. RE: The 'valid time' requirement (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2015-06-05)
  24. 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, 13:36:43

Requirement re-assigned to the Best Practice deliverable.

Alejandro Llaves, 9 Jun 2015, 16:17:39

Requirement re-assigned to the Best Practice deliverable.

Alejandro Llaves, 9 Jun 2015, 16:18:05

Still not clear whether this is a (Best Practice) requirement under the scope of the group.

Alejandro Llaves, 10 Jun 2015, 10:13:13

Proposal 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

Frans Knibbe, 19 Nov 2015, 12:43:06

Display change log ATOM feed

Chair, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: 16.html,v 1.1 2018/10/09 10:07:56 carine Exp $