- From: Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:45:50 +0100
- To: public-prov-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4E2881EE.1040906@ncl.ac.uk>
Hi, I would advise against using the same terms with different typographical convention :-) what the document perhaps needs to clarify more upfront is that there is a "real world" and then a model of it, and the constructs of the language are about the model. It does say that but perhaps not strongly enough. - Characterized entity belongs in the world - BOBs belong in the data model that is a representation of the world. These two levels are never conflated. The good old "record linkage" community (data quality in databases) never had any qualms about using "real-world entities", as in "reconciling different records (BOBs?) that represent the same real-world entity". In their world (pun intended :-)), a record is a very concrete data structure that sits in a data store and you can display on a screen. Now, we cannot use "record", we have ruled out "information(al) resource"... but isn't that basically the territory? Entity representation? -Paolo On 7/21/11 8:33 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: > Hi Khalid, > OK. This said we have over 20 occurrences of "characterized entity" in the text. > > We can't simply use the "expansion" everywhere. Having some terminology is desirable. > > Do you have a suggestion? > > We could also go for a typographic difference: > BOB -> CharacterizedEntity > and we keep 'characterized entity' elsewhere. > > Luc > > On 21/07/2011 20:27, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >> >> Hi Luc, >> >> I guess I used the wrong term, "interchangeable". I guess that what I meant is that "Characterized Entity" can be considered as a >> candidate to replace "BOB". Of course, in that case, we will need to avoid the usage of the the term "characterized entity" in >> the core of the definition. E.g., we can use the following definition: >> >> A "Characterized Entity" is a description of the situation of an entity in the world. >> >> Or something in these lines. >> >> Thanks, khalid >> >> On 21/07/2011 19:54, Luc Moreau wrote: >>> Hi Khalid, >>> >>> As far as I know, they are *not* interchangeable. One is the language construct, the other is "in the world". >>> >>> cf. definition: >>> >>> ABOBrepresents an identifiable >>> characterized entity. >>> >>> Should we go for "Characterized Entity", we need a typographic >>> convention to distinguish between >>> >>> the construct and the world-thing, otherwise, the reader will never >>> know whether this is language construct >>> >>> or not. >>> >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> On 21/07/2011 19:45, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >>>> >>>> In the Provenance Model initial draft, the terms "Bob" and "characterized entity" are used interchangeably. >>>> Characterized entity seems then to be a candidate for replacing BOB. >>>> >>>> Thanks, khalid >>>> >>>> On 21/07/2011 19:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? [Conceptual Model] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/30 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>>> >>>>> How do we call the construct referred to as BOB. "BOB" was introduced as a placeholder at F2F1. Before F2F1, we use to refer to it as thing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> -- ----------- ~oo~ -------------- Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 19:46:22 UTC