Re: PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have associated time [Conceptual Model]

Hi Paul,

I'd like to come back to this issue, and see how we can solve it.

The fully expanded notion of derivation, written 
wasDerivedFrom(e2,e1,pe,q2,q1),
refers to the generation event for e2, and the use event for e1.
So, they form an "interval".  If we have time information for
each of these events (and assuming a same clock), we can compute the 
duration
of this interval.

So, the question is, do you really have a use case, where you don't want
to assert the use/generation events (qualified usage/generation) but want
to express time?  Can you explain it?

My concern is that we are at risk of introducing two placeholders for 
the same time information
(in derivation or use/generation events). Two placeholders for time may 
result in inconsistent
information.

Luc


On 07/23/2011 04:46 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-43 (derivation-time): Deriviation should have  associated time [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/43
>
> Raised by: Paul Groth
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
> Other relationships have time associated with them (e.g. use, generation, control)
>
> There is no optional time associated with derivation.
>
> Suggested resolution is to add the following to the definition of isDerivedFrom:
>
> -  May contain a "derived from time" t, the time or time intervals when b1 was derived from b2
>
> Example:
> isDerivedFrom(b1,b2, t)
>
>
>
>
>
>    

-- 
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 Tuesday, 8 November 2011 15:33:11 UTC