Re: PROV-ISSUE-280 (TLebo): {started,ended,used,wasGenerated}At <-> prov:qualified [ prov:atTime ] pattern [Ontology]

Hi Tim,
given that now Start, End, Generation and Usage are "InstantaneusEvents" in
the ontology, can we close this issue?
Thanks,
Daniel

2012/3/4 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>

> Luc,
>
> The intent for this issue is to uniformly apply the unqualified /
> qualified patterns that has had some success in prov-o.
> I remember this example being discussed at F2F, and am working from that
> impetus.
>
> To answer your question about different times, the property can assume
> multiple values for the same subject:
>
> :input_1 prov:usedAt "2012-03-03T21:04:54-05:00",
>                                       "2012-03-04T10:58:04-05:00" .
>
> But I now realize that the property should be reversed to suit our
> standing goals [1], specifically "directionality of the triple should point
> to the Element that "existed earlier""
>
> :dataSet
>
>  prov:usedEntityAt  "2012-03-03T21:04:54-05:00", "2012-04-04T21:04:54-05:00";
>    prov:used :input_1, :input_2;
>    prov:qualified [
>       a prov:Usage;
>       prov:entity :input_1;
>       prov:atTime "2012-03-03T21:04:54-05:00";
>    ], [
>       a prov:Usage;
>       prov:entity :input_2;
>       prov:atTime "2012-04-04T21:04:54-05:00"
>    ];
> .
>
>
> The largest motivation for applying the unqualified / qualified pattern to
> time is to avoid a level of indirection for Activity start and end times.
> Requiring the TimeInstant indirection is going to cause nontrivial
> practical issues with respect to query times and duplicate results.
>
> I've started eg-14 [2] so that we can stay concrete in this ISSUE.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ProvRDF#Mapping_goals
> [2]
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/a7e1c279eb6c/examples/eg-14-unqualified-and-qualified-times/rdf/eg-14-unqualified-and-qualified-times.ttl
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2012, at 5:14 AM, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Can you handle two usages at different times for a same entity? I fear
> that a property usedAt does not allow for this.
>
> Professor Luc Moreau
> Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Southampton SO17 1BJ
> United Kingdom
>
> On 4 Mar 2012, at 02:09, "Timothy Lebo" <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> Sorry, the page cut me short:
>
>
> Time can be incrementally qualified, just like the binary relations.
>
>
> The following pattern could be used for started, ended, used, and
> wasGeneratedAt:
>
>
>
> :input_1 prov:usedAt "2012-03-03T21:04:54-05:00" .
>
> :input_2 prov:usedAt "2012-04-04T21:04:54-05:00" .
>
>
> :dataSet
>
>  prov:used :input_1, :input_2;
>
>  prov:qualified [
>
>     a prov:Usage;
>
>     prov:entity :input_1;
>
>     prov:atTime "2012-03-03T21:04:54-05:00";
>
>  ], [
>
>     a prov:Usage;
>
>     prov:entity :input_2;
>
>     prov:atTime "2012-04-04T21:04:54-05:00"
>
>  ];
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/E1RtEkN-0003xz-Ik@tibor.w3.org
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKc1nHfd8B1a9m=eKCACQJpNZgGR1GJdaiDpNpnTxqycb4LDUA@mail.gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2012, at 9:05 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>
> PROV-ISSUE-280 (TLebo): {started,ended,used,wasGenerated}At <->
> prov:qualified [ prov:atTime ] pattern [Ontology]
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/280
>
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>
> On product: Ontology
>
>
> Time can be incrementally qualified, just like the binary relations.
>
>
>
> :dataSet
>
> prov:used :input_1, :input_2;
>
> prov:usedAt "2012-03-03T21:04:54-05:00", "2012-04-04T21:04:54-05:00";
>
> prov:qualified [
>
>    a prov:Usage;
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/E1RtEkN-0003xz-Ik@tibor.w3.org
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKc1nHfd8B1a9m=eKCACQJpNZgGR1GJdaiDpNpnTxqycb4LDUA@mail.gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>