Re: PROV-ISSUE-104 (time-class): How to relate start/end time to PE, use, generation, etc [Formal Model]

(apologies for potential resend)

On Mar 8, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Stephan Zednik wrote:

> 
> On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:02 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 16:24, Daniel Garijo
>> <dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>>> Are you happy with the current modelling? Can we close this issue.
>> 
>> I'm  not happy with the current modelling, as I feel we should also
>> have some simple time-relation properties, so that asserters can say
>> when they know that e2 is after e1 - even if they don't know when
>> either of them was.
> 
> We could follow the paradigm already established in owl time and have the simple properties
> 
> prov:before
> prov:after
> 
> The domain and range could be InstantaneousEvent, but that limits us to saying if something is before something else, both things must be instantaneous.  That is a restriction I do not particularly like.
> 
> How about Event as a superclass of InstantaneousEvent, and we try again to have an Event that is explicitly non-instantaneous (DurationalEvent?) which a subclass of Event and disjoint from Instantaneous Event.  The domain and range of prov:before and prov:after would then be prov:Event.

Since this is not within DM, I suggest we keep this as a third party modeling, which would provide the superclass your:Event and subclass your:DurationalEvent and reuse prov:InstantaneousEvent.

Is that okay?

-Tim

> 
> --Stephan
> 
>> 
>> However you can close this issue, as we now use time:Instant objects
>> in the ontology, which can be customized.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 20:31:24 UTC