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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-259: hadTemporalExtent domain and range [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:53:35 -0500
Message-Id: <6090E332-8F68-4545-9D7E-1AAA6069EA27@rpi.edu>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Stephan,

Previous changes on hadTemporalExtent (becoming occurredAt) + changes:

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/601fe1fa5bfd/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
and
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/f39e3afc55b5/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl
and
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/diff/201e6e6d9cbf/ontology/ProvenanceOntology.owl

should be close to your request.

I'm open to name suggestions for the domain of hadTemporalExtent (currently, Durable).
Activities are a subclass of Durable.

I'm changing this issue to pending review.

-Tim



On Feb 22, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-259: hadTemporalExtent domain and range [Ontology]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/259
> 
> Raised by: Stephan Zednik
> On product: Ontology
> 
> hadTemporalExtent has rdfs:domain prov:Involvement, which means if anything has a prov:hadTemporalExtent that it will be inferred to be a member of the class prov:Involvement.
> 
> Since a temporal extent describes the time (interval or instant) over which something occurred, I would prefer to not restrict the class of things with temporal extent to Involvement.  For example, I think it would make sense in practice for Activities to use hadTemporalExtent.
> 
> Also, I would like the range of hadTemporalExtent to be relaxed to include both TimeInstant and intervals of time (which we currently do not model in prov-o).  In OWL-Time this would be time:TemporalEntity (union of time:Instant and time:Interval).
> 
> --Stephan 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 05:54:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT