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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:03:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtk0=-4tKujkqbsF+op8HVMDiewLEniekebWBTfpXQQXmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:55, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Done. but Activities are durations, so prov:hadTemporalExtent could be
> applied there.
> I could use some help on that (Stephan, Satya, Stian?)

Activities, entities and involvements like Usage and Association have
in a broad sense all durations. However DM only talks about activity
durations, and the others have/are 'events', so we should keep the
focus there for now, and rather raise it as a requirement to DM if we
can think of a good use case.


>> For the domain, Association and Delegation are different from other
>> Involvements in that they are not expected to have time information, is this
>> because we do not view them as instantaneous events?
> I'd be curious to hear an answer to this.

I would assume they are non-empty durations in almost every use case.



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 14:04:46 GMT

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