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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]

From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:45:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2881EE.1040906@ncl.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi,

I would advise against using the same terms with different typographical convention :-)

what the document perhaps needs to clarify more upfront is that there is a "real world" and then a model of it, and the constructs 
of the language are about the model. It does say that but perhaps not strongly enough.
- Characterized entity belongs in the world
- BOBs belong in the data model that is a representation of the world.
These two levels are never conflated.

The good old "record linkage" community (data quality in databases) never had any qualms about using "real-world entities", as in 
"reconciling different records (BOBs?) that represent the same real-world entity".
In their world (pun intended :-)), a record is a very concrete data structure that sits in a data store and you can display on a 
screen.
Now, we cannot use "record", we have ruled out "information(al) resource"... but isn't that basically the territory?
Entity representation?

-Paolo


On 7/21/11 8:33 PM, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Khalid,
> OK.  This said we have over 20 occurrences of "characterized entity" in the text.
>
> We can't simply use the "expansion" everywhere. Having some terminology is desirable.
>
> Do you have a suggestion?
>
> We could also go for a typographic difference:
>   BOB -> CharacterizedEntity
> and we keep 'characterized entity' elsewhere.
>
> Luc
>
> On 21/07/2011 20:27, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luc,
>>
>> I guess I used the wrong term, "interchangeable". I guess that what I meant is that "Characterized Entity" can be considered as a 
>> candidate to replace "BOB". Of course, in that case, we will need to avoid the usage of the the term "characterized entity" in 
>> the core of the definition. E.g., we can use the following definition:
>>
>> A "Characterized Entity" is a description of the situation of an entity in the world.
>>
>> Or something in these lines.
>>
>> Thanks, khalid
>>
>> On 21/07/2011 19:54, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Hi Khalid,
>>>
>>> As far as I know, they are *not* interchangeable. One is the language construct, the other is "in the world".
>>>
>>> cf. definition:
>>>
>>> ABOBrepresents an identifiable
>>> characterized entity.
>>>
>>> Should we go for "Characterized Entity", we need a typographic
>>> convention to distinguish between
>>>
>>> the construct and the world-thing, otherwise, the reader will never
>>> know whether this is language construct
>>>
>>> or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> On 21/07/2011 19:45, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the Provenance Model initial draft, the terms "Bob" and "characterized entity" are used interchangeably.
>>>> Characterized entity seems then to be a candidate for replacing BOB.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, khalid
>>>>
>>>> On 21/07/2011 19:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model]
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/30
>>>>>
>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau
>>>>> On product: Conceptual Model
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we call the construct referred to as BOB.  "BOB" was introduced as a placeholder at F2F1. Before F2F1, we use to refer to it as thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>
>>


-- 
-----------  ~oo~  --------------
Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University,  UK
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 19:46:22 GMT

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