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

Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model]

From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:11:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=T_mu+2ccqSw4V4_RsKvEBp18mQdg=ry+BKhVrjyi1DJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
In the simple case, if a BOB refers to Entity A (for instance, as a
URI), and another BOB also refers to Entity A, then the BOBs refer to
the same Entity.

The complex case, where we try to resolve the entities by examining
the BOBs closely, I think is outside of the PIL, and can be determined
by applications using whatever algorithms they think are important.

Jim

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Khalid Belhajjame
<Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2011 20:20, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> Hi Khalid,
> Can you expand on this? What would it help us to achieve?
>
> At F2F1, some mentioned "turtle all way down" to refer to the idea that we
> are not trying
> to make a distinction between an entity and its state (as we used to say
> then).
> This would translate into the fact that we only have characterized entities
> ...
>   and are not trying to distinguish an entity from a characterized entity.
>
> Can you explain what benefits you see in distinguishing entity from
> characterized entity?
>
> So, does it mean in the example, you would say that e1 is same entity as e2?
> Potentially, this could be captured by (the very rough) definition of
> version.
>
> Yes, possibly, I actually first thought that "isRevisionOf" can be used, but
> I think it poses stronger condition that what is needed by "sameEntity".
>
> Regarding your question about the benefits. I think, having "sameEntity()"
> can be used in the definition of IVPof:
> Specifically, in page 10, it is stated that:
>
> "An assertion "B is an IVP of A" holds over the temporal intersection of A
> and B, only if:
>
> if a mapping can be established from an attribute X of B to an attribute Y
> of A, then the values of A and B must be consistent with that mapping
> B has some attribute that A does not have"
>
> I think, if "sameEntity" exists then it can be used as a third condition, to
> make sure that A and B refers to the same entity, otherwise one cannot be an
> IVPof the other.
>
> Also, given a BOB bi, a user  may be interested in tracing the history of
> all the BOBs that were used to derive b1 and that refer to the same entity.
> In other words, the query here is give me the history of the entity that bi
> refers to.
>
> khalid
>
>
>
> Luc
>
> On 21/07/2011 20:06, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
> PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are
> characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/35
>
> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame
> On product: Conceptual Model
>
>
> Do we need a mean to specify that two BOB are characterizations of the same
> entity?
>
> In the initial draft, I think that the editors intentionally avoided
> defining the term "entity" as part of the vocabulary. I don't suggest
> defining that term, but having a means by which one would know that two Bobs
> are characterizations, possibly different, of the same entity, e.g., using
> an assertion like "sameEntity(bob1, bob2)".
>
> I think this will be useful, amongst other things, in the definition of
> IVPof.
>
> Khalid
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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 Thursday, 21 July 2011 20:12:30 GMT

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