W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: PROV-O comments

From: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:20:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKc1nHeH6xNaD=xjDUWxwxtiOV6oLA+p6hbhscQDw0fhEECDgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Stian,

Thanks for the clarification. That's fine, but the text does still say
that instants can have "no interior points". From what you say, that
is simply something that can't be enforced, and we distinctly would
not want it to be, so it seems misleading to explain it that way.
Maybe what is meant is "no interior points for this asserter at this
moment", but that doesn't seem too helpful.


On 29 November 2011 16:39, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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, 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.

Dr Simon Miles
Lecturer, Department of Informatics
Kings College London, WC2R 2LS, UK
+44 (0)20 7848 1166

Provenance in Agent-mediated Healthcare Systems:
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 18:21:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:04 UTC