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: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:23:38 +0000
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a40563df43ea77b753f57bc0fa1431b7n6KLNg08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|FBE08C69-F26B-458E-A826-08055E01F992@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Jim,
Can you relate to the document. What is a pil:entity?  This construct does not exist.

What do you mean by Bob does not represent ...? The definition says it's a representation.

I am confused.

Luc

Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton 
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom

On 21 Jul 2011, at 21:10, "Jim McCusker" <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:

> I think we're still going around in circles.
> 
> Entity: A thing in the world, can be represented by, for instance, a
> URI. That URI, in PIL, is a pil:Entity.
> 
> BOB: A description of an entity constrained by context (including time
> and place). The description is not the entity, even within our
> information representation. A BOB must be able to refer to something.
> That BOB is a description of an entity, but does not REPRESENT the
> entity.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 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:
>> 
>> A BOB represents 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 20:24:22 GMT

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