- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:23:11 +0000
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi Stephan, This is not part of prov-dm. While part II of prov-dm introduces the relation follows/precedes between events, they are defined to give an interpretation to the data model, and they are not a construct of the data model. Luc On 08/03/12 16:48, Stephan Zednik wrote: > 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 21:23:41 UTC