- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:27:23 +0000
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul, Comments interleaved. On 11/09/2011 08:53 AM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Luc, > > For me this is about, saying the following: > > blogpost wasDerivedFrom Report at 10am Thursday What do you mean by this: blogpost was generated at 10am? > > Sure there is some process there, there may be an interval. But I just > don't want to assert all that information. I understand, but ultimately, I am trying to determine whether there is a new special event 'derivation' to which time is associated with, or whether we can reuse generation/use events or start/end events. > > Again, my fundamental thing is that I want to assert derivation chains > without (knowingly) asserting anything about process. > > Maybe the point is I'm looking for a shortcut such that if I assert a > time it automagically infers that the e2, and e1 are on the same time > line using the same clock and are the same time? Inferring time line and same clock would be no good. > > Does that make sense? > I still need you to clarify the intended semantics, specifically, what notion of time you refer to. Then, when it's decided, we can express the short cut. My take on it, in the above example, you refer to the blogpost generation time. > Paul Luc > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> >> I'd like to come back to this issue, and see how we can solve it. >> >> The fully expanded notion of derivation, written >> wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1), >> refers to the generation event for e2, and the use event for e1. >> So, they form an "interval". If we have time information for >> each of these events (and assuming a same clock), we can compute the >> duration >> of this interval. >> >> So, the question is, do you really have a use case, where you don't want >> to assert the use/generation events (qualified usage/generation) but >> want >> to express time? Can you explain it? >> >> My concern is that we are at risk of introducing two placeholders for >> the same time information >> (in derivation or use/generation events). Two placeholders for time may >> result in inconsistent >> information. >> >> Luc >> >> >> On 07/23/2011 04:46 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated >>> time [Conceptual Model] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/43 >>> >>> Raised by: Paul Groth >>> On product: Conceptual Model >>> >>> Other relationships have time associated with them (e.g. use, >>> generation, control) >>> >>> There is no optional time associated with derivation. >>> >>> Suggested resolution is to add the following to the definition of >>> isDerivedFrom: >>> >>> - May contain a "derived from time" t, the time or time intervals >>> when b1 was derived from b2 >>> >>> Example: >>> isDerivedFrom(b1,b2, t) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 08:28:04 UTC