Re: PROV-ISSUE-115 (Tlebo): prov:preceded should be replaced with prov:followed [Formal Model] from Khalid Belhajjame on 2011-10-05 (public-prov-wg@w3.org from October 2011)

From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:09:08 +0100
To: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4E8C7314.3030407@cs.man.ac.uk>

Hi Tim,


In the data model there is wasScheduledAfter, which I thought can be 
used instead of preceded. There is also an entry in the formal model (or 
provenance ontology) HTML document.

Do you think wasScheduledAfter does the job? :-)

khalid






On 05/10/2011 14:56, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-115 (Tlebo): prov:preceded should be replaced with prov:followed [Formal Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/115
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Formal Model
>
> All other predicates are pointing from the newer rdfs:Resource to the older rdfs:Resource (e.g. prov:wasDerivedFrom).
>
> This "backwards looking" paradigm makes sense because we need to describe newer things in terms of the older things sitting around.
>
> prov:preceded is inconsistent with this paradigm, as it "looks forwards" to the newer one, which may not exist yet.
>
> I recommend we REPLACE prov:preceded with prov:followed and reverse the definition. To keep the ontology trim, we should leave the definition of prov:followed's inverse to an extension.
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 15:09:35 UTC