tempo:validFrom, tempo:validTill or FIBO props?

[VladimirAlexiev]

In ISO10383.tarql you use:

PREFIX tempo: <http://purl.org/tempo/>
tempo:validFrom
tempo:validTill

I looked at http://purl.org/tempo and it's a good ontology.

However, I'm pretty sure that FIBO has its own props to express the temporal validity of an identifier. Right @ElisaKendall?

[hroptatyr]

Alas, neither as DatatypeProperty nor AnnotationProperty.

[VladimirAlexiev]

I'm a bit doubtful about the usefulness of the MIC "date" fields.

• Eg about 24EX: STATUS DATE=SEPTEMBER 2019, STATUS=ACTIVE, CREATION DATE=SEPTEMBER 2019
• I made the mistake of interpreting CREATION DATE as "when the exchange was established" and adding that to Wikidata as "inception date"
• Then I saw that many exchanges were created much earlier, so I had to delete these statements from Wikidata

So I learned the difficult way that these dates have nothing to do with the real-world exchange, they are only related to the MIC record (when the MIC keeper got the information or added the entry)

You correctly:

• emit this as fibo-fbc-fct-mkti:Exchange-24EX tempo:validFrom "2019-09-23"^^xsd:date
• http://www.fresse.org/tempo/#validfrom is careful to talk about the "resource" (not the real-world object) and to say that it's ok to have a sequence of validFrom dates
• these dates are useful for book-keeping purposes

So I guess my question is to @ElisaKendall: is this modeled correctly?

[hroptatyr]

FIBO distinguishes between the real-world exchange fibo-fbc-fct-mkt:Exchange-... and its MIC (fibo-fbc-fct-mkt:MIC-XXYY). So yes, in they are modelling it correctly, however, a reused MIC simply gets the pointer to the exchange updated (lcc-lr:identifies) without ever becoming invalid.