Re: New PROV Errata entry

I see,
apologies, I got confused. Thanks for the clarification.
Daniel

2015-07-01 17:16 GMT+02:00 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>:

>
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>  Hi Daniel,
>
> I didn't think there was formal proposal to remove generatedAtTime.
>
>
> +1; merely a log.
>
> This can only be enacted by a new Working
> Group in any case.
>
> I understood Tim's email (and previous conversation I had with him) as
> logging of a discrepancy between prov-o and prov-dm,
> to be resolved by a future Working Group.
>
>
> Since the extra properties “snuck in” as a Rec, then it would likely mean
> that the DM and other serializations would need to catch up.
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 01/07/2015 15:56, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>
>    Hi Luc,
> I understand. However, prov:generatedAtTime was introduced as a shortcut
> function.
>  I have seen it widely used by people adopting PROV in order to avoid
> having to use blank nodes or qualified terms.
>
> It is also used in the prov-dc direct mappings for mapping dct:created,
> dct:dateAccepted, dct:dateCopyRighted, dct:dateSubmitted, dct:issued and
> dct:modified. That document was reviewed and accepted by the group.
>
>  If we now remove this relationship, it will create inconsistencies with
> the PROV-DC document. And it will introduce inconsistencies with the people
> who have extended and adopted PROV. I think it is better to have
> prov:generatedAtTime as redundant shortcut property rather than remove it.
>
>  Best,
>  Daniel
>
> 2015-07-01 16:38 GMT+02:00 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
>
>>  Hi Daniel,
>>
>> We don't have formal mappings between our representations. So, I am not
>> sure there is an authoritative
>> answer.
>>
>> Looking at activities, in prov-n, we can write:
>>   activity(a,2001-10-26T21:32:52,2001-10-26T21:32:53)
>> This corresponds to
>> a prov:startedAtTime 2001-10-26T21:32:52.
>> a prov:endedAtTime 2001-10-26T21:32:53.
>>
>> For entities, we don't have time information allowed in prov-n:
>>
>>   entity(e)
>>
>> Instead, wasGeneratedBy(e,-,2001-10-26T21:32:52) can be translated using
>> the qualitifed pattern.
>>
>>   e prov:hadQualifiedGeneration [ prov:atTime 2001-10-26T21:32:52]
>>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01/07/2015 15:27, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Luc,
>>  I am sorry, but I must be missing something here.
>>  generatedAt time (Entity->dateTime) is an attribute of Entity.
>>  atTime (InstantaneousEvent ->dateTime) is an attirbute of Generation,
>> among others like End or Start.
>>
>>  Example 20 in Prov-DM (
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/Overview.html#anexample-generation2)
>> states that "wasGeneratedBy(e, -, 2001-10-26T21:32:52)" is valid. And that
>> is equivalent to "e prov:generatedAtTime 2001-10-26T21:32:52", right?
>>
>>  I still fail to see where the issue is :(
>>  Daniel
>>
>> 2015-07-01 16:10 GMT+02:00 Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
>>
>>>  Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Time is an attribute of generation, not of entity, as it currently
>>> stands.
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2015 15:04, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>>
>>>   Hi Tim,
>>>  are you suggesting to delete prov:generatedAtTime??
>>>  Example 20 in PROV-DM shows how to do the equivalent thing with  DM:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-prov-dm-20130430/Overview.html#anexample-generation2
>>>
>>>  I think this was a very useful property for stating the creation time
>>> of an entity without having to qualify the generation term.
>>>  It is also used in the prov-dc mapping. I don't understand why this is
>>> an issue.
>>>  Best,
>>>  Daniel
>>>
>>> 2015-07-01 15:37 GMT+02:00 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>:
>>>
>>>>  Please note a recent addition to the PROV Errata [1] regarding
>>>> PROV-O’s generation and invalidation time properties, copied below.
>>>> The entry resolves issue [2].
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks to Luc and his team for pointing out the disparity.
>>>> Thanks to Ivan for publishing the revised Errata document.
>>>>
>>>>  Regards,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>  Error o-5 <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/errata.html#o-5>, generation
>>>> and invalidation time properties have no equivalent in prov-dm
>>>>
>>>> in (22) Property: prov:generatedAtTime
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#generatedAtTime> and in (27) Property:
>>>> prov:invalidatedAtTime <http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#invalidatedAtTime>,
>>>> prov:generatedAtTime and prov:invalidatedAtTime properties should not be
>>>> defined because they have no equivalent in prov-dm and thus no equivalent
>>>> in other PROV serializations.
>>>>
>>>> (22) Property: prov:generatedAtTime
>>>>
>>>> IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generatedAtTime
>>>>
>>>> (27) Property: prov:invalidatedAtTime
>>>>
>>>> IRI:http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#invalidatedAtTime
>>>>
>>>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/errata.html#o-5
>>>> [2] https://github.com/timrdf/prov-wg/issues/4
>>>>
>>>>  Timothy Lebo
>>>> lebot@rpi.edu
>>>> https://impactstory.org/TimothyLebo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>   --
>>> Professor Luc Moreau
>>> Head of the Web and Internet Science Group
>>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>>> University of Southampton          twitter: @lucmoreau
>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK           http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Luc Moreau
>> Head of the Web and Internet Science Group
>> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
>> University of Southampton          twitter: @lucmoreau
>> Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK           http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>>
>>
>
> --
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Head of the Web and Internet Science Group
> Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
> University of Southampton          twitter: @lucmoreau
> Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK           http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
>
>
> Timothy Lebo
> lebot@rpi.edu
> https://impactstory.org/TimothyLebo
>
>