W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-prov@w3.org > May 2011

Re: concept illustrations for the data journalism example

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:58:21 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a9d72272b1ac5d441fb7b5e66017fe46n4BCwS08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4DCBCB5D.4060806@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Paul,

Actually we already have an example of time:

- government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1)

What is t1?

- time at which conversion starts? ends?
- time at which d1 is read? time at which f1 is created?
- time at which gov requests this conversion to be done
- ...

Aren't we becoming model specific when we phrase these questions.
They imply, respectively:
- there is a start and end to a conversion
- there is a specific read/creation time
- ...

I am just cautious about becoming model specific at this stage, but I am
fine to have a time "placeholder" to initiate discussions.

Cheers,
Luc

On 05/12/2011 12:48 PM, Paul Groth wrote:
> Hi Luc,
>
> I think the notion of saying "something happened at a particular time" 
> is pretty common sensical. By including that in the scenario, I think 
> we have an entry point to discussing exactly those issues that you 
> bring up.
>
> No?
>
> cheers,
> Paul
>
> Luc Moreau wrote:
>> Olaf and Paul,
>>
>> On 05/12/2011 12:30 PM, Olaf Hartig wrote:
>>> Hey Paul,
>>>
>>> On Thursday 12 May 2011 10:16:14 Paul Groth wrote:
>>>> >  Hi Olaf:
>>>> > >  Interesting exercise. Thanks.
>>>> >
>>>>> > >  1.) The example does not talk about specific points in time 
>>>>> at which the
>>>>> > >  different processing steps happened (Hence, I omitted 
>>>>> corresponding
>>>>> > >  statements in my description). Shouldn't the example extended 
>>>>> with such
>>>>> > >  kind of information? For instance, the first processing step 
>>>>> could read:
>>>>> > >  "government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1)"
>>>> > >  I think time is implicit in the example. I don't know if we 
>>>> need to make
>>>> >  it explicit. It seems it would be tailoring the example to a
>>>> >  representation language...
>>> I don't see that.
>>>
>>> If (some of) the processing steps were mentioning such a time, I 
>>> would have
>>> added corresponding  prv:performedAt  triples to my example 
>>> description. Since
>>> there were no such times, I omitted these triples because I wanted the
>>> description to be as close to the textual description as possible. 
>>> What I want
>>> to say is, without such times we cannot see whether a 
>>> model/vocabulary would
>>> support representing them.
>>>
>> Time is important no doubt, and not made explicit in the scenario.
>> What does it mean to be performedAt? Time at which process execution
>> took place? Is it instaneous? has it a duration? Is it the time at 
>> which the DataItem
>> is produced?
>>
>> Can we express these questions and answer them independently of a 
>> terminology?
>>
>> Luc
>>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 11:59:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 May 2011 11:59:23 GMT