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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-104 (time-class): How to relate start/end time to PE, use, generation, etc [Formal Model]

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:48:04 -0700
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AACF250B-4C87-4161-B218-EAA475A6977C@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 16:24, Daniel Garijo
> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>> Are you happy with the current modelling? Can we close this issue.
> I'm  not happy with the current modelling, as I feel we should also
> have some simple time-relation properties, so that asserters can say
> when they know that e2 is after e1 - even if they don't know when
> either of them was.

We could follow the paradigm already established in owl time and have the simple properties


The domain and range could be InstantaneousEvent, but that limits us to saying if something is before something else, both things must be instantaneous.  That is a restriction I do not particularly like.

How about Event as a superclass of InstantaneousEvent, and we try again to have an Event that is explicitly non-instantaneous (DurationalEvent?) which a subclass of Event and disjoint from Instantaneous Event.  The domain and range of prov:before and prov:after would then be prov:Event.


> However you can close this issue, as we now use time:Instant objects
> in the ontology, which can be customized.
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:58:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:13 UTC