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: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:07:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2D4068.6020203@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On 25/07/2011 10:24, Luc Moreau wrote:
>
> The problem with Snapshot (like state, etc), is that it is the 
> snapshot of an entity.
> We just don't want to distinguish an entity from its state, or an 
> entity from its snapshot.

On the other hand, Snapshot has the advantage of conveying the fact that 
it is a description from a certain perspective (view).

khalid

>
> Hence, using Entity avoids this problem.
>
> Luc
>
> On 07/25/2011 10:19 AM, Paul Groth wrote:
>> I thought we were getting somewhere with snapshot.....
>>
>> I don't think ENTITY really captures the intuition behind a BOB. It's 
>> too general.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Paul
>>
>> Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> The word 'Entity' should also be considered for the construct BOB.
>>>
>>> If we do so, the text 'characterized entity' should be replaced by
>>> something else in the draft specification.
>>> Why not 'thing'?
>>>
>>>
>>> So, the text could become:
>>>
>>>    Section 4.
>>>    In the world (whether real or not), there are things, which can be
>>> physical, digital, conceptual, or otherwise, and activities involving
>>> things.
>>>    Words such as thing or activity should be understood with their
>>> informal meaning.
>>>    This specification is concerned with characterized things, that is,
>>> things and their situation in the world, as perceived by the asserter.
>>>
>>>    Section 5.1
>>>    An ENTITY represents an identifiable characterized thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> On 07/24/2011 11:43 PM, Reza B'Far wrote:
>>>> First, for the record Khalid was the person suggesting Snapshot :)
>>>>
>>>> The way I've seen snapshot used commercially, it's fairly consistent
>>>> with the current definition of BOB.  There is some murkiness on both
>>>> sides (how "snapshot" is used commercially and I think we're still
>>>> iterating here on the definition of BOB, but may be that's close to be
>>>> finalized).  However, I think they are close enough.  What I liked
>>>> about "Snapshot" is that its intuitive and is used in several domains
>>>> that I know of (content management, legal, configuration systems, and
>>>> I've also seen use-cases in microfilm production by old-school
>>>> librarians).  Also, I think "Snapshot" offers a huge advantage that
>>>> it's neither explicitly linked to the entity nor its state.  And I
>>>> know the distinction between entity vs. entity's state and how that's
>>>> articulated has been in a lot of the discussions.  Using "Snapshot"
>>>> sort of obsoletes that discussion.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/24/11 12:57 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>>>> I am not partial to snapshot, partially because of the extensive
>>>>> functional usage of the term.  I have always associated a snapshot
>>>>> with a point in time, not a duration - but this may be an incorrect
>>>>> association.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am open to discussing it, but my initial inclination was negative
>>>>> towards it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will we use the same definition as we have been using for BOB?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Stephan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2011, at 9:52 AM, "Reza B'Far"<reza.bfar@oracle.com>   
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I second the term "Snapshot".  This term also has functional usage
>>>>>> in several commercial application categories used within roughly the
>>>>>> same meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/24/11 3:45 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Stephan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the example you gave in your previous email, I think that
>>>>>>> "EntitySpanshot" or "Snapshot" should be fine, given that it
>>>>>>> reflect the fact that it is a description of an entity that holds
>>>>>>> for some period of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> khalid
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/07/2011 20:24, Stephan Zednik wrote:
>>>>>>>> I do not feel that EntityInstance, EntityInstantiation, or
>>>>>>>> InstantiatedEntity make sense for the book ownership scenario, or
>>>>>>>> any scenario modeling the provenance of changes in characteristics
>>>>>>>> of a physical object.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To reiterate the example since I haven't committed it to a wiki
>>>>>>>> page yet.  Book X is an entity that represents a real world
>>>>>>>> object.  It can be put on a shelf, loaned to friends, damaged,
>>>>>>>> and/or destroyed.  It has important characteristics (condition,
>>>>>>>> ownership, location, etc) that may change over the life of the
>>>>>>>> book.  We may want to represent the provenance of the book as a
>>>>>>>> chain of ownership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> |<----------------------------------------------------- Book X
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------->| 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> |<!------ Book X with owner A ---->|<----Book X with owner B
>>>>>>>> ---->|<---- Book X with owner A --------->|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a book changes ownership, is the "book with changed ownership"
>>>>>>>> a different EntityInstance?  A different InstantiatedEntity?  I
>>>>>>>> don't think what we current call a BOB is an 'instance of'
>>>>>>>> anything.  I think of it as a description of an entity that holds
>>>>>>>> for some time period (not necessarily given) for which
>>>>>>>> contextually important mutable characteristics of the the entity
>>>>>>>> are held to be known.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Stephan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2011 5:29 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/22/2011 03:43 AM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The term "Snapshot" was suggested some time ago, and it seems 
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> several people did like it.
>>>>>>>>>> We can also use the term "EntitySnapshot".
>>>>>>>>> Following from snapshot:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EntityInstance
>>>>>>>>> EntityInstantiation
>>>>>>>>> InstantiatedEntity
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Curt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 10:08:11 GMT

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