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: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:07:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4E289502.8050404@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org

Entity is not part of the provenance Vocabulary. So I guess that what 
you (Jim) are suggesting is that the question of whether two BOBs refers 
to the same entity is outside the scope of the provenance vocabulary, 
did I understand correctly your suggestion?

Thanks, khalid

On 21/07/2011 21:11, Jim McCusker wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 21:07:43 GMT

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