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: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:29:54 -0700
Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <53C00DC5-CB41-4E2A-832B-FB4585A2CBEC@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
As was stated in a previous email, if we don't want to interoperate over this then I am happy to leave it out.  It sounded as if there was a desire to interoperate/standardized over this functionality, which would mean we would have to look at creating these relations with reasonable ranges and domains in prov-o; and the suggested Event superclass would be useful to create a meaningful property domain.

--Stephan

On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:

> (apologies for potential resend)
> 
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:48 AM, 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.
> 
> Since this is not within DM, I suggest we keep this as a third party modeling, which would provide the superclass your:Event and subclass your:DurationalEvent and reuse prov:InstantaneousEvent.
> 
> Is that okay?
> 
> -Tim
> 
>> 
>> --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 Friday, 9 March 2012 20:37:38 GMT

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