Re: AW: Time Vocabulary

Well, it really depends on whether you are after a lexical term that 
conveys the semantics  (available in plenty from multiple 
vocabularies/ontologies) or if you subscribe to a view point. The 
advantage of using  foundational ontologies is their neutrality and 
therefore when you extend from one of those, you make the term your own 
in some sense, while still retaining the real world scope.

PROV-O is excellent and I use it profusely, but the view point it takes 
is that of provenance, so when you extend from PROV-O, you are 
essentially subscribing to its notion of provenance, which IMHO, is not 
exactly why we are building the time vocabulary  within the context of 
streams (I know I am treading dangerous waters here, but hey.....). Our 
motivation is different and we should try and retain that in our 
vocabulary too. So, While I would not object to using PROV-O, I would 
still wonder if time related provenance, as  we claim when we extend 
from it has any semantic implications or is even needed. I know with 
DUL, we will be "semantically safe" :-) .

Cheers,

Monika

On 26/06/2015 12:33, Wetz Peter wrote:
> Yes it'd be good. Please note, that I did not ignore your proposal of 
> extending DUL. I was just looking at PROV-O first and it seemd to be 
> well providing what we aim for (at least partly). I don't know if it's 
> doable to do both, that is, a) 'extending from DUL' and b) 'extending 
> from PROV-O' in one vocab.
>
> What do you think?
>
> best,
> Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* Monika Solanki [monika.solanki@gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 26. Juni 2015 12:25
> *An:* Daniele Dell'Aglio; public-rsp@w3.org
> *Betreff:* Re: Time Vocabulary
>
> Hi,
>
> Indeed, only that it cannot happen today because of a deliverable 
> deadline. I will be joining the call though, so I can certainly 
> participate in the discussion.
>
> Monika
>
> On 26/06/2015 11:20, Daniele Dell'Aglio wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Peter, thank you for the effort. Monika, could you try to propose an 
>> extension (or alternative) version from DUL? It would help the 
>> comparison and the discussion.
>>
>> Daniele
>>
>> Il giorno ven 26 giu 2015 alle ore 11:08 Monika Solanki 
>> <monika.solanki@gmail.com <mailto:monika.solanki@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>>
>>     I still think extending from a foundational ontology such as DUL
>>     has its purpose and advantages, so besides PROV-O it would also
>>     be useful to extend from DUL. However, I will leave it at that.
>>
>>
>>     Monika
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 26/06/2015 10:44, Wetz Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     as discussed extensively on the list (cf. [1]) there is a need
>>>     to create a small time vocabulary (or reuse existing terms) for
>>>     capturing relations between streamed graphs and time instants.
>>>
>>>     I have done a first simple proposal and uploaded it to the repo
>>>     at [2]. I reuse properties of PROV-O by specializing from some
>>>     PROV-O terms. I hope you can take a look so we can have a
>>>     discussion in today’s telco.
>>>
>>>     Looking forward!
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Peter
>>>
>>>     [1] https://github.com/streamreasoning/RSP-QL/issues/10
>>>
>>>     [2]
>>>     https://github.com/streamreasoning/RSP-QL/blob/master/TimeVocab.owl
>>>
>>
>