Re: PROV-ISSUE-253: misc issues with the ontology [mapping prov-dm <-> prov-o]

Hi Tim,
Yes this issue is old, and can be closed.
My latest review on the internal document included all my concerns at 
the time.
Thanks,
Luc

On 05/15/2012 09:43 PM, Timothy Lebo wrote:
> Luc,
>
> There is a lot of discussion on the points you make, which are rather old.
> Could you look over the original issues and point out any concerns that you still have?
>
> Otherwise, may we close this issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>    
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:55, Timothy Lebo<lebot@rpi.edu>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> Done. but Activities are durations, so prov:hadTemporalExtent could be
>>> applied there.
>>> I could use some help on that (Stephan, Satya, Stian?)
>>>        
>> Activities, entities and involvements like Usage and Association have
>> in a broad sense all durations. However DM only talks about activity
>> durations, and the others have/are 'events', so we should keep the
>> focus there for now, and rather raise it as a requirement to DM if we
>> can think of a good use case.
>>
>>
>>      
>>>> For the domain, Association and Delegation are different from other
>>>> Involvements in that they are not expected to have time information, is this
>>>> because we do not view them as instantaneous events?
>>>>          
>>> I'd be curious to hear an answer to this.
>>>        
>> I would assume they are non-empty durations in almost every use case.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>>
>>      
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 16:25:42 UTC