Extension of OWL-Time with additional temporal relations (Draft W3C note)

dr-shorthair commented 5 years ago

Response to #1126 Add missing relations, particularly to support algebra for time instants. See new branch https://github.com/w3c/sdw/tree/time-entity-relations Preview of document here: https://rawgit.com/w3c/sdw/time-entity-relations/proposals/time-entity-relations/index.html

elf-pavlik commented 5 years ago

Thank you @dr-shorthair ❗️ At first glance all looks good to me. I'll take some time this week to properly review it.

dr-shorthair commented 5 years ago

@elf-pavlik Could you generate some examples to show why these new relations are useful? Preferable with some accompanying explanation so they could be dropped into Section 4. in the draft.

ashepherd commented 5 years ago

Hey folks, there's a group of data repositories interested in publishing a temporal extent that expresses a seasonal coverage across multiple years. Rather, they want to express that data was collected in an aggregate of multiple intervals.

The use case for an extension to OWL-Time for this case is driven by search precision and recall. For example if the data were collected in June, July and August across the years 2012 to 2015, a temporal interval extending from 2012 to 2015 would hit as a match for a search looking for data between January 2013 and May 2013 which would be wrong in this case.

In discussions with @dr-shorthair , he recommended a small extension of one class and one property:

time:TemporalAggregate rdf:subClassOf time:TemporalEntity .

time:hasMember a owl:ObjectProperty;

                rdfs:domain time:TemporalAggregate ;

                rdfs:range time:TemporalEntity .

With this aggregate class, we can express a collection of Temporal entities that explicitly describes the collection activity.

Thoughts?

dr-shorthair commented 5 years ago

@ashepherd I'm inclined to make this a separate note to the one on this issue - rather different scope. Wouldn't want one to hold up the other and get conversations too tangled. OTOH we could start by rolling them together and split them only if necessary.

kjano commented 5 years ago

Hi Adam,

Just one brief comment. The solution below would not preserve the order of the aggregates directly (e.g., compared to a list).

Best, Jano

On 7/20/19 1:56 AM, Adam Shepherd wrote:

Hey folks, there's a group of data repositories interested in publishing a temporal extent that expresses a seasonal coverage across multiple years. Rather, they want to express that data was collected in an aggregate of multiple intervals.

The use case for an extension to OWL-Time for this case is driven by search precision and recall. For example if the data were collected in June, July and August across the years 2012 to 2015, a temporal interval extending from 2012 to 2015 would hit as a match for a search looking for data between January 2013 and May 2013 which would be wrong in this case.

In discussions with @dr-shorthair https://github.com/dr-shorthair , he recommended a small extension of one class and one property:

|time:TemporalAggregate rdf:subClassOf time:TemporalEntity . time:hasMember a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:domain time:TemporalAggregate ; rdfs:range time:TemporalEntity . |

With this aggregate class, we can express a collection of Temporal entities that explicitly describes the collection activity.

Thoughts?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1139?email_source=notifications&email_token=AANMP5QIWANR772LIX244Q3QAJIENA5CNFSM4IDSVW62YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD2NBLZI#issuecomment-513414629, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANMP5S5VFGPWRDVP64XGQ3QAJIENANCNFSM4IDSVW6Q.

-- Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

ashepherd commented 5 years ago

Hi Jano, I haven’t used OWL-Time extensively. Do you a see a situation where the order would be useful to explicitly state so as not to rely on sorting the date/time values themselves?

Cheers, Adam

On Jul 20, 2019, at 3:05 AM, kjano notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Adam,

Just one brief comment. The solution below would not preserve the order of the aggregates directly (e.g., compared to a list).

Best, Jano

On 7/20/19 1:56 AM, Adam Shepherd wrote:

Hey folks, there's a group of data repositories interested in publishing a temporal extent that expresses a seasonal coverage across multiple years. Rather, they want to express that data was collected in an aggregate of multiple intervals.

The use case for an extension to OWL-Time for this case is driven by search precision and recall. For example if the data were collected in June, July and August across the years 2012 to 2015, a temporal interval extending from 2012 to 2015 would hit as a match for a search looking for data between January 2013 and May 2013 which would be wrong in this case.

In discussions with @dr-shorthair https://github.com/dr-shorthair , he recommended a small extension of one class and one property:

|time:TemporalAggregate rdf:subClassOf time:TemporalEntity . time:hasMember a owl:ObjectProperty; rdfs:domain time:TemporalAggregate ; rdfs:range time:TemporalEntity . |

With this aggregate class, we can express a collection of Temporal entities that explicitly describes the collection activity.

Thoughts?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1139?email_source=notifications&email_token=AANMP5QIWANR772LIX244Q3QAJIENA5CNFSM4IDSVW62YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD2NBLZI#issuecomment-513414629, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANMP5S5VFGPWRDVP64XGQ3QAJIENANCNFSM4IDSVW6Q.

-- Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

elf-pavlik commented 5 years ago

@ashepherd I'm inclined to make this a separate note to the one on this issue - rather different scope. Wouldn't want one to hold up the other and get conversations too tangled.

:+1: while this draft just fills in some missing relations which don't imply time:ProperInterval, mentioned time:TemporalAggregate sounds like a new feature which can have independent note and process of working on it

@elf-pavlik Could you generate some examples to show why these new relations are useful? Preferable with some accompanying explanation so they could be dropped into Section 4. in the draft.

I plan to work on it in upcoming week, mostly examples with statements about future where one doesn't know yet if some of related temporal entities will get recorded as time:Instant (eg. just with time:inXSDTimeDateStamp information) or as time:ProperIntervalwith some more specific relations that implies it.

dr-shorthair commented 5 years ago

Move the discussion on temporal aggregates to #1140

dr-shorthair commented 5 years ago

@elf-pavlik were you able to generate some compelling examples, using the proposed relations?