W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2011

Re: PROV-ISSUE-85 (What-is-Entity): Definition of Entity is confusing, maybe over-complex [Conceptual Model]

From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 15:17:31 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|01fdd37249a522114b9367e925cdbbd7n81FHZ08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E60E57B.608@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
The conversation thread [1] indicates the origin of the confusion.
Entity is a data model construct, and so is an assertion made by an 
This assertion is about a thing in the world.

The insistence on characterized thing is that we don't identify a thing 
itself, about
a characterized thing. The 'comet' and 'the comet near the sun' are two 
examples of
characterized things, with different identity.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0017.html

Furthermore comments interleaved.

On 01/09/2011 17:32, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-85 (What-is-Entity): Definition of Entity is confusing, maybe over-complex [Conceptual Model]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/85
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: Conceptual Model
> See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Aug/0383.html
> Section 5.1.
> The definition of "Entity" seems to introduce un-needed complications.  I don't see anything here that fundamentally distinguishes an entity from anything that can be named, i.e. a web resource.
> I don't see what useful purpose is served by the insistence on "characterized thing".
> This section seems to spend more effort describing "entity assertion" is is apparently a different concept, but not formally part of the model.  There is some sense that an entity must have associated entity assertions... but I can't see why this is needed, and indeed it may be not possible to enforce this idea in RDF's open world model.

An entity assertion *is* part of the conceptual model.

I don't know what you mean with RDF open world model, here. Can you give 
an example illustrating the potential problem?
> There's been talk of Entities being part of the occurrent vs continuant distinction, but I'm not seeing that explained.
It was mentioned in email, indeed. With Paolo, we didn't feel there was 
enough consensus for this.


> Suggest:  why not just have an entity as an identifiable thing, and build the rest around that?  What would break with this approach?
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 14:18:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:58:08 UTC