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

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

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:30:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtmG5omP+hR5Urbnr51C3itTpzWGn14rh+i2WobN4mp5WA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:53, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> I'm open to name suggestions for the domain of hadTemporalExtent (currently, Durable).
> Activities are a subclass of Durable.

Perhaps "durable" is strange name, as it sounds like it will last a
while, like a good pair of shoes.


What seems to come out of this organization is a hint that any
prov:InstantaneousEvent (DM term, so I guess OK for now) like End,
Start, Generation, can be linked with a prov:TimeInstant.

prov:Durable's like prov:Activity (and no other? prov:Entity
possibly?) could be linked with prov:TimeInterval - that is they have
a start and end. prov:occuredDuring does not quite reflect this - it
just says that the activity at least happened/lived during that
interval - but could have lasted longer.


prov:hadTemporalExtent is still in the ontology with an empty domain -
when to use hadTemporalExtent vs occuredAt?


prov:startedAt, prov:EndedAt are not related to the other time properties.


http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF  does not seem to reflect
these new properties/classes.

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 13:31:26 GMT

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