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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-213 (prov-sem-events): Alignment of events in PROV-DM vs PROV-SEM [Formal Semantics]

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:57:41 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f5fcdf3818fd00d168ba7fb53b7411b6o0U9vk08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F27BB15.8000804@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi James,

DM assumes a mapping from events to some form of time. Here
we could say:

TMap = Event -> Time

An Interval is a pair of evetns: Event x Event

Functions that take time as input should take event, e.g.:
   value: Objects x Attributes x Events -> Values

Luc

On 01/12/2012 06:27 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-213 (prov-sem-events): Alignment of events in PROV-DM vs PROV-SEM [Formal Semantics]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/213
>
> Raised by: James Cheney
> On product: Formal Semantics
>
> Quoting from Luc's email that raised the issue:
>
>    
>> PROV-DM tends to talk about events, whereas your semantics focuses on time.
>>   PROV-DM assumes the existence of a mapping from events to time.  Is it possible
>>   to align both?
>>      
> I believe they are already aligned, and if others disagree then I solicit suggestions on how to change PROV-SEM to improve this.
>
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 09:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:11 UTC