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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 16:43:34 -0400
Cc: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>, Satya Sahoo <satya.sahoo@case.edu>, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9D9B1937-5935-4AB0-8523-FFA523212F6F@rpi.edu>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Luc,

There is a lot of discussion on the points you make, which are rather old.
Could you look over the original issues and point out any concerns that you still have?

Otherwise, may we close this issue?

Thanks,
Tim

On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:55, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Done. but Activities are durations, so prov:hadTemporalExtent could be
>> applied there.
>> I could use some help on that (Stephan, Satya, Stian?)
> 
> Activities, entities and involvements like Usage and Association have
> in a broad sense all durations. However DM only talks about activity
> durations, and the others have/are 'events', so we should keep the
> focus there for now, and rather raise it as a requirement to DM if we
> can think of a good use case.
> 
> 
>>> For the domain, Association and Delegation are different from other
>>> Involvements in that they are not expected to have time information, is this
>>> because we do not view them as instantaneous events?
>> I'd be curious to hear an answer to this.
> 
> I would assume they are non-empty durations in almost every use case.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 20:45:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 May 2012 20:45:49 GMT