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

prov:before
prov:after

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.

--Stephan

> 
> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:58 GMT