- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:29:54 -0700
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@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>
As was stated in a previous email, if we don't want to interoperate over this then I am happy to leave it out. It sounded as if there was a desire to interoperate/standardized over this functionality, which would mean we would have to look at creating these relations with reasonable ranges and domains in prov-o; and the suggested Event superclass would be useful to create a meaningful property domain. --Stephan On Mar 9, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote: > (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 20:37:38 UTC