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

Re: Is _this_ what is meant by "Entity"?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 21:27:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4E6530B7.4080300@ninebynine.org>
To: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Luc,

Mainly, I was suggesting the text refer to it as an "Entity assertion".  I am 
less concerned at this stage by the functor name used in the PASN and/or the OWL 
class name with which the assertions are associated.

But I would not object to what you suggest if you feel that is more consistent 
(though, depending on how the mapping to OWL/RDF works, it _might_ be that 
Entity is a more appropriate name for the OWL class - in other words, I don't 
really know until I see how the OWL/RDF mapping is defined).

#g
--

On 05/09/2011 17:22, Luc Moreau wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> Are you suggesting that the OWL class should become EntityAssertion?
> and in the provenance abstract syntax notation we write entityAssertion(...)?
>
> Luc
>
>
> On 09/05/2011 04:13 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> Luc,
>>
>> The problem is that the term "Entity" suggests the things rather than the
>> assertion about the thing. It's taken me a while to figure out that's not how
>> you are currently using it. I think others could have a similar problem.
>>
>> Personally, I'd go with Simon's definition for "Entity", and use "Entity
>> assertion" for the PIDL construct: I think those terms better match people's
>> expectations of what they mean, and clearly expose how they are related.
>>
>> #g
>> --
>>
>> On 05/09/2011 08:23, Luc Moreau wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> I don't know what you have gained by introducing this definition, except
>>> a more compact terminology. We have tried to use "identifiable characterized
>>> thing"
>>> consistently across the text, to refer to this concept.
>>>
>>> There was a *very strong* indication (at F2F and after) from the WG, that
>>> we should not use the same label for the PIDM construct and the concept.
>>> As editors, we have followed the WG wish.
>>>
>>> For this reason, I am proposing not to change the text. Instead, we should
>>> talk about "identifiable characterized thing".
>>>
>>> Same comment applies to activity vs process execution.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>
>>> PS ISSUE-85
>>>
>>> On 09/03/2011 03:40 PM, Simon Miles wrote:
>>>> Defn 1. An entity*is* an identifiable characterized thing.
>>>
>
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 20:37:42 GMT

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