- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:48:04 -0700
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 16:24, Daniel Garijo > <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote: >> Are you happy with the current modelling? Can we close this issue. > > I'm not happy with the current modelling, as I feel we should also > have some simple time-relation properties, so that asserters can say > when they know that e2 is after e1 - even if they don't know when > either of them was. We could follow the paradigm already established in owl time and have the simple properties prov:before prov:after The domain and range could be InstantaneousEvent, but that limits us to saying if something is before something else, both things must be instantaneous. That is a restriction I do not particularly like. How about Event as a superclass of InstantaneousEvent, and we try again to have an Event that is explicitly non-instantaneous (DurationalEvent?) which a subclass of Event and disjoint from Instantaneous Event. The domain and range of prov:before and prov:after would then be prov:Event. --Stephan > > However you can close this issue, as we now use time:Instant objects > in the ontology, which can be customized. > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 16:58:42 UTC