- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:06:44 +0100
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 18:17, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote: > Formalizing Time is outside the scope of the working group. We need to recognize that not everything will be able to be expressed otherwise we won't have interoperability. Yes - I agree it is out of scope, just like formalizing Location is - and I want to make it up to the extensions to decide how they want to formulate time (and Location). But what is the point of introducing prov:Time and prov:Location classes if they have no properties and no relation to anything else in the ontology? If it's out of scope, but we still want to say something rough about it, we should at least introduce a proper anchoring point, like we are (trying to) do with Role. If not then we should leave it out completely. (Which I would not personally like, because asserting when something happened is a quite crucial part of provenance - when its known). For reference, here are some time/event ontologies: http://motools.sourceforge.net/timeline/timeline.html http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 10:07:35 UTC