- From: Monika Solanki <monika.solanki@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 13:21:52 +0100
- To: Wetz Peter <peter.wetz@tuwien.ac.at>, Daniele Dell'Aglio <daniele.dellaglio@polimi.it>, "public-rsp@w3.org" <public-rsp@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <558D43E0.5080301@gmail.com>
Sure. I can see that you have used the relationships linked-data style in the vocab, this in general should not be a problem but you are probably aware that PROV-O is in OWL-RL. For reasoning related tasks that may occur at some point while stream processing, If any reasoner did decide to pull in all of PROV-O, it may be a good idea to point this out somewhere in the docs- right not I cannot foresee any major consequences, but just something to be aware of. Monika On 26/06/2015 13:05, Wetz Peter wrote: > 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] >> *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 >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 26 June 2015 12:22:12 UTC