- From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 15:19:22 -0500
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
(apologies for potential resend) On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:48 AM, 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. Since this is not within DM, I suggest we keep this as a third party modeling, which would provide the superclass your:Event and subclass your:DurationalEvent and reuse prov:InstantaneousEvent. Is that okay? -Tim > > --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 Friday, 9 March 2012 20:31:24 UTC