- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:08:44 +0000
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- CC: Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes@nasa.gov>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
I just added this comment to the wiki example: [[ GK comment: this topic (uncertain times) has been discussed in the context of CIDOC CRM, and the discussion was quite involved. I think we need to avoid getting into the rathole of creating ontologies for uncertain time intervals, but provide something to which such work can be attached. In this case, the prov:Activity provides the placeholder, and we can duck the actual problem of how to represent the uncertain time interval. I think this is what the final example above is suggesting, except that I would see the time estimate property being applied to the prov:Activity resource rather than the prov:Entity. (E.g. what if we were trying to say Mona Lisa was created about 1503-1519, and touched up in some later period? Do we really want to contemplate new time-related properties for every possible activity type? ]] #g -- On 17/02/2012 15:08, Timothy Lebo wrote: > Added example to > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/PROV_OWL_ontology_component_examples#The_MonaLisa_portrait_is_dated_to_circa_1503.E2.80.931519 > > -tim > > > On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > >> On 02/16/2012 05:04 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> On 16/02/12 21:36, Satya Sahoo wrote: >>>> Also, I believe the DM supports representation of a simple provenance >>>> assertion such as, "The MonaLisa portrait is dated to circa 1503–1519" >>>> (MonaLisa portrait is an Entity). >>> >>> How would you do it? I don't know. >> >> Time is instantaneous, so you couldn't specify it as a generation >> time, but could you just define a domain specific attribute for the >> generation? >> >> wasGeneratedBy(ex:MonaLisa, [ex:creationEstimate="1503-1519"]); >> >> Is it ok to leave out both activity and time in order to specify >> generation attributes? DM would seem to allow it since everything but >> entity is optional. >> >> >> How would such a thing get mapped to RDF? >> >> ex:MonaLisa a prov:Entity . >> _:a a prov:Activity . >> _:g a prov:Generation . >> ex:MonaLisa prov:wasGeneratedBy _:a . >> _:a prov:hadQualifiedGeneration _:g . >> _:g a prov:QualifiedInvolvement . >> _:g prov:hadQualifiedEntity ex:MonaLisa . >> _:g ex:creationEstimate "1503-1519" . >> >> >> Probably easier to just express this outside PROV: >> >> ex:MonaLisa ex:creationEstimate "1503-1519" . >> >> Curt >> >> > > >
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 20:26:43 UTC