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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:57:21 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|8351dfa640dbab69ea21371f4cc2df10n6KJvY08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E287691.3040902@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Agreed with your suggestions Khalid.
I would just avoid the word 'use' in the phrasing, given its occurrence 
in the spec.

Luc

On 21/07/2011 19:49, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/32
>
> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
> The definition of Bob states that
>
> "A BOB assertion is about a characterized entity, whose situation in the world is variant. A BOB assertion is made at a particular point and is invariant, in the sense that all the attributes are assigned a value as part of that assertion."
>
> I suggest to modify the definition as follows:
>
> "A BOB assertion is about a characterized entity, whose situation in the world *may be* variant. A BOB assertion is made at a particular point and is invariant, in the sense that *the attributes used to characterize the BOB* are assigned a value as part of that assertion."
>
>
> "is variant" ->  "may be variant": there may be situations in which a given entity has only one characterization which spans the life time of that entity.
> "all attributes" ->  "the attributes that characterize the BOB" or "the attributes associated with the BOB": this is to avoid people thinking that we have complete knowledge of all possible attribute that can be used to characterize the BOB.
>
> Khalid
>
>
>
>    
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 18:57:53 GMT

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