Re: AW: AW: Time Vocabulary

Sure. I can see that you have used the relationships linked-data style 
in the vocab, this in general should not be a problem but you are 
probably aware that PROV-O is in OWL-RL. For reasoning related tasks 
that may occur at some point  while stream processing, If any reasoner 
did decide to pull in all of PROV-O, it may be a good idea to point this 
out somewhere in the docs- right not I cannot foresee any major 
consequences, but just something to be aware of.

Monika

On 26/06/2015 13:05, Wetz Peter wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations. I can follow and I agree mostly. But 
> isn't time related provenance exactly what we want to achieve here? We 
> want to know the time related provenance, e.g. generation time, from 
> an entity (graph). Also see the description of prov:generatedAttime, 
> that is, "Generation is the completion of production of a new entity 
> by an activity. This entity did not exist before generation and 
> becomes available for usage after this generation.". IMHO, that fits 
> to our case.
>
> Anyway, at the same time I'd prefer to be "semantically safe" by 
> extending from DUL.
>
> After looking at DUL I can offer one proposal: What if we make our new 
> properties subproperties of DUL:hasEventDate, but keep the rest as is? 
> Would that be satisfying to you?
>
> Best,
> Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* Monika Solanki [monika.solanki@gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 26. Juni 2015 13:48
> *An:* Wetz Peter; Daniele Dell'Aglio; public-rsp@w3.org
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: Time Vocabulary
>
> Well, it really depends on whether you are after a lexical term that 
> conveys the semantics  (available in plenty from multiple 
> vocabularies/ontologies) or if you subscribe to a view point. The 
> advantage of using foundational ontologies is their neutrality and 
> therefore when you extend from one of those, you make the term your 
> own in some sense, while still retaining the real world scope.
>
> PROV-O is excellent and I use it profusely, but the view point it 
> takes is that of provenance, so when you extend from PROV-O, you are 
> essentially subscribing to its notion of provenance, which IMHO, is 
> not exactly why we are building the time vocabulary  within the 
> context of streams (I know I am treading dangerous waters here, but 
> hey.....). Our motivation is different and we should try and retain 
> that in our vocabulary too. So, While I would not object to using 
> PROV-O, I would still wonder if time related provenance, as  we claim 
> when we extend from it has any semantic implications or is even 
> needed. I know with DUL, we will be "semantically safe" :-) .
>
> Cheers,
>
> Monika
>
> On 26/06/2015 12:33, Wetz Peter wrote:
>> Yes it'd be good. Please note, that I did not ignore your proposal of 
>> extending DUL. I was just looking at PROV-O first and it seemd to be 
>> well providing what we aim for (at least partly). I don't know if 
>> it's doable to do both, that is, a) 'extending from DUL' and b) 
>> 'extending from PROV-O' in one vocab.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> best,
>> Peter
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Von:* Monika Solanki [monika.solanki@gmail.com]
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 26. Juni 2015 12:25
>> *An:* Daniele Dell'Aglio; public-rsp@w3.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: Time Vocabulary
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Indeed, only that it cannot happen today because of a deliverable 
>> deadline. I will be joining the call though, so I can certainly 
>> participate in the discussion.
>>
>> Monika
>>
>> On 26/06/2015 11:20, Daniele Dell'Aglio wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Peter, thank you for the effort. Monika, could you try to propose an 
>>> extension (or alternative) version from DUL? It would help the 
>>> comparison and the discussion.
>>>
>>> Daniele
>>>
>>> Il giorno ven 26 giu 2015 alle ore 11:08 Monika Solanki 
>>> <monika.solanki@gmail.com <mailto:monika.solanki@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>     I still think extending from a foundational ontology such as DUL
>>>     has its purpose and advantages, so besides PROV-O it would also
>>>     be useful to extend from DUL. However, I will leave it at that.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Monika
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 26/06/2015 10:44, Wetz Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>     as discussed extensively on the list (cf. [1]) there is a need
>>>>     to create a small time vocabulary (or reuse existing terms) for
>>>>     capturing relations between streamed graphs and time instants.
>>>>
>>>>     I have done a first simple proposal and uploaded it to the repo
>>>>     at [2]. I reuse properties of PROV-O by specializing from some
>>>>     PROV-O terms. I hope you can take a look so we can have a
>>>>     discussion in today’s telco.
>>>>
>>>>     Looking forward!
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>
>>>>     Peter
>>>>
>>>>     [1] https://github.com/streamreasoning/RSP-QL/issues/10
>>>>
>>>>     [2]
>>>>     https://github.com/streamreasoning/RSP-QL/blob/master/TimeVocab.owl
>>>>
>>>
>>
>