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

PROV-ISSUE-309 (TLebo): using owltime:before on prov:InstantaneousEvents pattern [Best Practice Cookbook]

From: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 13:47:03 +0000
Message-Id: <E1S609v-0006G5-NB@tibor.w3.org>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
PROV-ISSUE-309 (TLebo): using owltime:before on prov:InstantaneousEvents pattern [Best Practice Cookbook]

http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/309

Raised by: Timothy Lebo
On product: Best Practice Cookbook

http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPRnXtmzn2vNrbC6LXZxvPjAPUK8h4muJT=9A1L7W2PYQ-NYzQ@mail.gmail.com


Now that they are all InstantaneousEvent, then no, that should still
be kind-of fine, as I can do:

 :activity1 a prov:Activity ;
     prov:qualifiedStart :activity1Start ;
     prov:qualifiedEnd :activity1End .

 :entity1 prov:qualifiedGeneration :entity1Gen .

 :activity1Gen ex:after :activity1Start .
 :activity1End ex:after :activity1Gen .

and in fact, if I as an asserter still like OWL Time, I can make
:activity1Gen etc. instances of time:Instant and use time:after
instead of my own ex:after - even make a property ex:started as
subproperty of both prov:qualifiedStart and time:hasBeginning (and
equivalent for prov:atTime/time:inXSDDateTime)  and talk about
:activity1  as an time:Interval.
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 13:47:10 GMT

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