- From: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:20:15 +0100
- To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAExK0DeJSWQDh=z-UfS47FMzYt_U8eV9Q6J-WVV9Fr=ZLXOzcw@mail.gmail.com>
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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 23:20:43 UTC