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 15:31:44 -0700
Cc: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <87304CD7-6893-4945-9D58-67442A62F556@rpi.edu>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 GMT

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