- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:45:57 +0100
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- CC: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Actually, the it was other way round (why do we care that BOBs are a concept). Never mind, I need to offer a proposal. #g -- Stephan Zednik wrote: > Nevermind my last comment. > > The email threading in OSX Lion made it appear that Graham was asking why we care if Entity is a concept in the model, not whether we care about the general question of whether we can know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity. > > Apologies, > --Stephan > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > >> 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 22:47:40 UTC