W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-231 (TLebo): Remove owl:Time from prov-o [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:14:43 -0500
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <CE1529B9-40FA-4E82-98D9-81E3E049C919@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Luc,

<ProP_response>
We don't want to use:

:activity
     prov:startedAt "2012-02-02T18:06:40-05:00";
     prov:endedAt "2012-02-02T18:09:40-05:00";
.

because it would confuse Time with Events, which I understand to be a concern in DM.

OWL Time uses xsd:dateTime in the right place -- as a description of a time:Instant.
The time:Instant (prov:Instant?) approach permits us to assert ordering among the time-annotated events.

Diagram of OWL ontology:
https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/raw/master/doc/ontology-diagrams/owl-time.pdf
</ProP_response>




<ScrufP_response>
The following modeling is exactly what we want - simple, direct, and useful!

:activity
     prov:startedAt "2012-02-02T18:06:40-05:00";
     prov:endedAt "2012-02-02T18:09:40-05:00";
.
</ScrufP_response>



Regards,
[ a prov:Entity; :state "tired"; prov:specializationOf <http://purl.org/twc/id/person/TimLebo> ]



On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:

> Hi  Khalid and Tim,
> 
> In the spirit of what was said today: why not xsd:dateTime?
> 
> Cheers,
> Luc
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/02/2012 11:27, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, agreed as a first step.
>> We also need to follow what's happening in the RDF working group as Ivan seems to hints that there are people working on that in that working group.
>> 
>> Khalid
>> 
>> On 02/02/2012 08:52, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 08:44, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>  wrote:
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-231 (TLebo): Remove owl:Time from prov-o [Ontology]
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/231
>>> As a first transition, we can change the current time:Instant etc. to
>>> just prov:Instant. They are already verbatim in the OWL, copied from
>>> time.owl (to avoid owl:import)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (I feel it's sad that the OWL Time ontology was never completed to a
>>> standard, as it's quite well made!)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:15:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:54 GMT