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: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:33:00 +0200
Message-ID: <A677E441-CCDE-439E-94CC-330F2C50CCE3@vu.nl>
CC: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
Hi Jim,

I think the key thing to do would be to formulate your point in terms of the document put out.

Paolo and Luc have tried to rectify definitions and in the process made a particular choice in how to describe the model. This may differ from prior assumptions about the model.

Thanks
Paul

On Jul 21, 2011, at 22:56, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote:

> I guess what I'm arguing (and have been) is that the concept of Entity
> needs a corresponding class in the model. Anything that is described
> by a BOB is an Entitiy. Let's say that
> http://tw.rpi.edu/person/JamesMcCusker represents me on the semantic
> web, and a description of me might exist somewhere. Let's say it's an
> RDF document that sits out on the web, and is called
> http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/JamesMcCusker. That document refers to my
> URI, and can be said in some way to describe me. We should be able to
> say the following:
> 
> http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/JamesMcCusker pil:describes
> http://tw.rpi.edu/person/JamesMcCusker.
> 
> That would in turn imply the following:
> 
> http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/JamesMcCusker a pil:BOB.
> http://tw.rpi.edu/person/JamesMcCusker a pil:Entitiy.
> 
> We can now assert provenance based on that BOB, which is tied to a
> pil:Entity that represents me.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 21:33:49 GMT

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