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: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:29:15 -0500
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2E048FF2-2893-4E67-80A7-8FD772FBB9AA@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:02 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.
> 
> However you can close this issue, as we now use time:Instant objects
> in the ontology, which can be customized.

FWIW,

I've phased prov:TimeInstant down this week in the OWL changes.

startedAt prov:TimeInstant became startedAtTime xsd:dateTime, similar for end.
Usage/Generation's prov:occurredAt prov:TimeInstant became prov:atTime xsd:dateTime.

if one /wanted/ to use TimeInstants, they could tie it in via the qualifiedStart [ a :Start ] form, similarly to how we maintain the "unqual/qual" parallels everywhere else.


I left TimeInstant and prov:inXSDDateTime around so that some _may_ use it if they wish, but it is not a principal (simple) modeling construct.

But I don't think this prevents Stian from just associating the temporal entities directly (activities, usages, etc). No?

-Tim


> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 04:39:48 GMT

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