- From: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:57:06 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Simon Miles <simon.miles@kcl.ac.uk>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote: > Simon Miles wrote: >> To understand the consequences of the above points, I suggest >> alternative definitions at the link below: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Talk:F2F1ConceptDefinitions#Entity_and_IVP_of > > +1 > > I think this is a big improvement over what we have. I like the Entity definition, but I'm not sure how we then go about qualifying assertions about Entities. We need a way of making those assertions (which is what BOBs were for) and a way of relating Entities that are the same, even if they aren't mathematically the same (different state, different aspect, etc.). IVP of as it's defined there is not quite enough, since it only allows for relations between entities that have subsumptive (a is IVP of b, therefore a has all the states of b plus some). Jim -- Jim McCusker Programmer Analyst Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics Yale School of Medicine james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu PhD Student Tetherless World Constellation Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute mccusj@cs.rpi.edu http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:58:07 UTC