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 16:06:19 -0600
Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <15BC3298-7DB0-48B8-B6CF-546F68111C0F@rpi.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Because the title of this email includes "How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity?"  If we have a justification for why the model does not need a concept for Entity then it would follow that we do not need to be able to represent an answer to this question.

--Stephan

On Jul 21, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:

> Why do we care?
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> 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 22:06:49 GMT

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