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: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:55:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4E28A04C.6040209@ninebynine.org>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
CC: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Jim McCusker wrote:
> I think we're still going around in circles.

+1

> Entity: A thing in the world, can be represented by, for instance, a
> URI. That URI, in PIL, is a pil:Entity.

+1/0

> 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.

This is where I think we're circling.  In my view a BOB is *not* a "description 
of an entity constrained by context, it's just "an entity constrained by context".

"entities" *and* "constrained entities" may be described...

#g
--

> 
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 22:00:02 GMT

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