Re: PROV-O comments

On Nov 24, 2011 3:13 PM, "Simon Miles" <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Maybe a philosophical point, but is an Instant, as referred to in Sec
> 3.1.4 and subclassed to Time in 3.1.10.1, really helpful in provenance
> data? It is defined as having "no interior points", but can one
> asserter ever know that what they refer to as an instant will not need
> to be decomposed by a future asserter?

As we are using time.owl here you are free to assert times using what
granularity and time.owl properties fit, for instance only minutes.

time.owl does not provide any precision notion (you could add a cusbtom
one), but neither does it say much about time equivalense for instances.
(interval have lots of time relations)

So I believe there would be no conflicts, although in general it would make
more sense to talk about intervals between different activities, etc.