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, 23 Sep 2011 12:11:04 +0100
Message-ID: <EMEW3|017fcf10f7613c2d2ae705e7e29600ccn8MCBp08l.moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4E7C6948.6050203@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: public-prov-wg@w3.org

Hi Graham,

Issue is now closed pending review. Issue was addressed in latest version
of document, as summarized in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2011Sep/0192.html
Cheers,
Luc

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.
>
> There's been talk of Entities being part of the occurrent vs continuant distinction, but I'm not seeing that explained.
>
> 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, 23 September 2011 11:12:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:42 GMT