W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-104 (time-class): How to relate start/end time to PE, use, generation, etc [Formal Model]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:06:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtk=fNQrJ+bYyixKaLnfcHWECP16zxkDK8gNFUboVJOjwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 18:17, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:
> Formalizing Time is outside the scope of the working group. We need to recognize that not everything will be able to be expressed otherwise we won't have interoperability.

Yes - I agree it is out of scope, just like formalizing Location is -
and I want to make it up to the extensions to decide how they want to
formulate time (and Location).

But what is the point of introducing prov:Time and prov:Location
classes if they have no properties and no relation to anything else in
the ontology?


If it's out of scope, but we still want to say something rough about
it, we should at least introduce a proper anchoring point, like we are
(trying to) do with Role. If not then we should leave it out
completely. (Which I would not personally like, because asserting when
something happened is a quite crucial part of provenance - when its
known).



For reference, here are some time/event ontologies:

http://motools.sourceforge.net/timeline/timeline.html
http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/


-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 10:07:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT