- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:58:21 +0100
- To: public-xg-prov@w3.org
Paul, Actually we already have an example of time: - government (gov) converts data (d1) to RDF (f1) at time (t1) What is t1? - time at which conversion starts? ends? - time at which d1 is read? time at which f1 is created? - time at which gov requests this conversion to be done - ... Aren't we becoming model specific when we phrase these questions. They imply, respectively: - there is a start and end to a conversion - there is a specific read/creation time - ... I am just cautious about becoming model specific at this stage, but I am fine to have a time "placeholder" to initiate discussions. Cheers, Luc On 05/12/2011 12:48 PM, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Luc, > > I think the notion of saying "something happened at a particular time" > is pretty common sensical. By including that in the scenario, I think > we have an entry point to discussing exactly those issues that you > bring up. > > No? > > cheers, > Paul > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> 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 11:59:23 UTC