AW: AW: Time Vocabulary

Thanks for the explanations. I can follow and I agree mostly. But isn't time related provenance exactly what we want to achieve here? We want to know the time related provenance, e.g. generation time, from an entity (graph). Also see the description of prov:generatedAttime, that is, "Generation is the completion of production of a new entity by an activity. This entity did not exist before generation and becomes available for usage after this generation.". IMHO, that fits to our case.

Anyway, at the same time I'd prefer to be "semantically safe" by extending from DUL.

After looking at DUL I can offer one proposal: What if we make our new properties subproperties of DUL:hasEventDate, but keep the rest as is? Would that be satisfying to you?

Best,
Peter

________________________________
Von: Monika Solanki [monika.solanki@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Juni 2015 13:48
An: Wetz Peter; Daniele Dell'Aglio; public-rsp@w3.org
Betreff: 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<mailto:monika.solanki@gmail.com>]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Juni 2015 12:25
An: Daniele Dell'Aglio; public-rsp@w3.org<mailto: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