W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > July 2011

Re: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same entity

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:19:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4E16AF80.6080305@ninebynine.org>
To: "Myers, Jim" <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I also think the word "state" is unfortunate.  What I think we are trying to 
describe is what might be called a "projection" of some entity into a 
constrained context, within which some statements hold true that don't hold true 
for all possible conditions of the original entity.

The word "state" implies something distinct from the entity itself, which I 
think is wrong.  For a static entity, it could be used without projection as the 
basis of provenance data.  So I'd cast around for a phrase that doesn't carry 
such connotation.

If the original thing is called an "Entity", maybe:

   Contextualized entitiy
   Constrained entity (I think this has unfortunate connotations)
   Entity view
   View
   Condition  (as in "in condition of readiness") (hmmm... could be confusing)
   Perspective
   Projection (arguably a bit mathematical in its origin)
   etc.

Looking ahead to specific modelling, I think that, whatever we call it, the 
contextualized entity should be based on the same type as the original, so if 
the original is (say) an owl:Thing, the contextualized entioty about which 
provanenance information is provided would also be an owl:Thing (that example is 
a bit tautological, but I hope the intent is discernable).  The two could be 
related by a property; e.g.

    A isContextualizedViewOf B

which would be reflexive, i.e.

    A isContectualizedViewOf A

would always be true of an entity about which we might want to make some 
provenance-related description.

Then, so say two view relate to the same underlying entity, we could have:

    A isContextualizedViewOf B
    C isContextualizedViewOf B

#g
--


Myers, Jim wrote:
> Not being at the meeting (wish I could be!), it is not clear whether this represents a shift in thinking about things and invariant views or perspectives on things or not. I think a critical aspect of going away from the word state was that I don't think we are talking about states - a file is not a state of a document whereas it could be a view/perspective of a document, e.g. something in a different ontology that shares state/real stuff with the first thing. Does this issue represent a shift back towards a model based on states? Or is it just shorthand for needing to describe when two things are views/perspectives of something?
> 
>  Jim
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker
>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 12:34 PM
>> To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to
>> the same entity
>>
>>
>> ISSUE-28: We need a mechanism to assert two entity states refer to the same
>> entity
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/28
>>
>> Raised by:
>> On product:
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 07:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:37 GMT