W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: PROV-ISSUE-232 (TLebo): activity start/end: direct time upgrades to instantaneous events [Ontology]

From: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:42:35 -0400
Cc: Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>, Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3505B703-FC4A-4433-8201-ECEFE81DA188@rpi.edu>
To: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
I've closed this issue, after moving it to:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV-FAQ#What_if_my_Activity_started.2Fended_at_a_time_other_than_xsd:dateTime.3F

-Tim


On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Although we've removed the 2006 namespace and any reference to its classes/properties, I still have a concern.
> 
> The demand to use prov:TimeInstant is unnecessarily verbose
> 
> I wrote [1] to contrast the options:
> :activity
>    a prov:Activity;
>    # Unqualified start
>    prov:startedAtTime    "2012-01-01T01:01:01-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime;
>    # Qualified Start
>    prov:startedAt [
>       a prov:TimeInstant; 
>       prov:atTime        "2012-01-01T01:01:01-05:00"^^xsd:dateTime; 
>    ];
> 
> Practical users of prov-o will prefer the "unqualified start" modeling because it avoids minting rdfs:Resources just to state the time.
> "Proper" provenance insists on the nuanced indirection (unless WD4 fixed this).
> Having this extra level of indirection slows queries and can lead to duplicate results (unless we impose atTime being inverse functional, but that's a lot of overhead that could be avoided with a direct triple.)
> 
> In the example, I was using the pattern "atTime" to indicate that the range is a xsd:dateTime. This is seen in startedAtTime and atTime.
> 
> -Tim
> 
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/d9433150115d/examples/eg-14-unqualified-and-qualified-times/rdf/eg-14-unqualified-and-qualified-times.ttl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Daniel Garijo wrote:
> 
>> Hi Tim,
>> now startedAt and endedAt can be bound to timeInstants (not using the 2006 namespace).
>> Can we close this issue?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>> 
>> 2012/2/3 Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>
>> Per Ivan, we should not use the 2006 namespace because it was never a final document.
>> We can mirror what we need into our own namespace.
>> 
>> TODO: Tim to change the owl ont.
>> 
>> -Tim
>> 
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 3:43 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> 
>> > PROV-ISSUE-232 (TLebo): activity start/end: direct time upgrades to instantaneous events [Ontology]
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/232
>> >
>> > Raised by: Timothy Lebo
>> > On product: Ontology
>> >
>> > per 9:40 Friday f2f2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 12:44:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:51:35 UTC