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: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:09:41 -0600
Cc: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <F854D1AA-9E0C-4364-9321-FFEDA6E154DC@rpi.edu>
To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Why is Entity not part of the provenance vocabulary?

--Stephan

On Jul 21, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:

> 
> 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 21:10:30 GMT

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