- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:11:04 +0100
- 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 UTC