- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:29:15 -0500
- 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 6:02 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. > > However you can close this issue, as we now use time:Instant objects > in the ontology, which can be customized. FWIW, I've phased prov:TimeInstant down this week in the OWL changes. startedAt prov:TimeInstant became startedAtTime xsd:dateTime, similar for end. Usage/Generation's prov:occurredAt prov:TimeInstant became prov:atTime xsd:dateTime. if one /wanted/ to use TimeInstants, they could tie it in via the qualifiedStart [ a :Start ] form, similarly to how we maintain the "unqual/qual" parallels everywhere else. I left TimeInstant and prov:inXSDDateTime around so that some _may_ use it if they wish, but it is not a principal (simple) modeling construct. But I don't think this prevents Stian from just associating the temporal entities directly (activities, usages, etc). No? -Tim > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team > School of Computer Science > The University of Manchester > >
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 04:39:48 UTC