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 
asserter.
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.

Luc

> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:41 GMT