- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:42:30 +0100
- To: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Olaf and Paul, On 05/12/2011 12:30 PM, Olaf Hartig wrote: > Hey Paul, > > On Thursday 12 May 2011 10:16:14 Paul Groth wrote: > >> > Hi Olaf: >> > >> > Interesting exercise. Thanks. >> > >> >>> > > 1.) The example does not talk about specific points in time at which the >>> > > different processing steps happened (Hence, I omitted corresponding >>> > > statements in my description). Shouldn't the example extended with such >>> > > kind of information? For instance, the first processing step could read: >>> > > "government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1)" >>> >> > >> > I think time is implicit in the example. I don't know if we need to make >> > it explicit. It seems it would be tailoring the example to a >> > representation language... >> > I don't see that. > > If (some of) the processing steps were mentioning such a time, I would have > added corresponding prv:performedAt triples to my example description. Since > there were no such times, I omitted these triples because I wanted the > description to be as close to the textual description as possible. What I want > to say is, without such times we cannot see whether a model/vocabulary would > support representing them. > > Time is important no doubt, and not made explicit in the scenario. What does it mean to be performedAt? Time at which process execution took place? Is it instaneous? has it a duration? Is it the time at which the DataItem is produced? Can we express these questions and answer them independently of a terminology? Luc -- 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 Thursday, 12 May 2011 11:43:28 UTC