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: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:47:36 -0500
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E4DAEC96-CD31-4243-A008-AD6922FC97AC@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>

On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 04:29, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>> 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?
> 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.

I added this as https://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/309

on the best practices doc.

Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 14:01:03 GMT

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