- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:31:44 -0700
- To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Ah, ok. As long as we don't expect any interoperability over this feature then I am happy to leave it out of prov-dm / prov-o. Slightly off topic, but regarding topics introduced by the DM but not official constructs; Is there a rule-of-thumb for relations or concepts introduced in the DM to provide interpretation, yet not official constructs of the DM? InstantaneousEvent, as an example, is incredibly useful in prov-o as a way to set a meaningful domain for the relation prov:atTime. InstantaneousEvent ~is~ part of the conceptual model of prov-dm; I presume it did not become a construct of the data model because there was no reason to directly assert ~just~ an instantaneous event. --Stephan On Mar 8, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > This is not part of prov-dm. > > While part II of prov-dm introduces the relation follows/precedes between events, > they are defined to give an interpretation to the data model, and they are not a construct > of the data model. > > Luc > > On 08/03/12 16:48, Stephan Zednik wrote: >> 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 22:32:18 UTC