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

Re: Models and their use

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:57:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=Tnp+UJnAVXPc-oGAJRFUdwdOnzmHb1rtJ06B8uDLFw=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> Simon Miles wrote:
>> To understand the consequences of the above points, I suggest
>> alternative definitions at the link below:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Talk:F2F1ConceptDefinitions#Entity_and_IVP_of
>
> +1
>
> I think this is a big improvement over what we have.

I like the Entity definition, but I'm not sure how we then go about
qualifying assertions about Entities. We need a way of making those
assertions (which is what BOBs were for) and a way of relating
Entities that are the same, even if they aren't mathematically the
same (different state, different aspect, etc.). IVP of as it's defined
there is not quite enough, since it only allows for relations between
entities that have subsumptive (a is IVP of b, therefore a has all the
states of b plus some).

Jim
--
Jim McCusker
Programmer Analyst
Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
Yale School of Medicine
james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:58:07 GMT

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