- From: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:57:21 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
Agreed with your suggestions Khalid. I would just avoid the word 'use' in the phrasing, given its occurrence in the spec. Luc On 21/07/2011 19:49, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-32: Bob definition [Conceptual Model] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/32 > > Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame > On product: Conceptual Model > > The definition of Bob states that > > "A BOB assertion is about a characterized entity, whose situation in the world is variant. A BOB assertion is made at a particular point and is invariant, in the sense that all the attributes are assigned a value as part of that assertion." > > I suggest to modify the definition as follows: > > "A BOB assertion is about a characterized entity, whose situation in the world *may be* variant. A BOB assertion is made at a particular point and is invariant, in the sense that *the attributes used to characterize the BOB* are assigned a value as part of that assertion." > > > "is variant" -> "may be variant": there may be situations in which a given entity has only one characterization which spans the life time of that entity. > "all attributes" -> "the attributes that characterize the BOB" or "the attributes associated with the BOB": this is to avoid people thinking that we have complete knowledge of all possible attribute that can be used to characterize the BOB. > > Khalid > > > >
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 18:57:53 UTC