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: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:17:30 -0400
Message-ID: <B7376F3FB29F7E42A510EB5026D99EF205468959@troy-be-ex2.win.rpi.edu>
To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
CC: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Why is something in context not also a valid Entity? - the URL of a version of a report found 'in the wild' on the web would seem to fit your description of a BOB for the report itself, yet it is also a valid Entity by your definition.

 Jim
> 
> 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
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:18:51 GMT

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