- From: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:07:14 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Entity is not part of the provenance Vocabulary. So I guess that what you (Jim) are suggesting is that the question of whether two BOBs refers to the same entity is outside the scope of the provenance vocabulary, did I understand correctly your suggestion? Thanks, khalid On 21/07/2011 21:11, Jim McCusker wrote: > In the simple case, if a BOB refers to Entity A (for instance, as a > URI), and another BOB also refers to Entity A, then the BOBs refer to > the same Entity. > > The complex case, where we try to resolve the entities by examining > the BOBs closely, I think is outside of the PIL, and can be determined > by applications using whatever algorithms they think are important. > > Jim > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Khalid Belhajjame > <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 21/07/2011 20:20, Luc Moreau wrote: >> >> Hi Khalid, >> Can you expand on this? What would it help us to achieve? >> >> At F2F1, some mentioned "turtle all way down" to refer to the idea that we >> are not trying >> to make a distinction between an entity and its state (as we used to say >> then). >> This would translate into the fact that we only have characterized entities >> ... >> and are not trying to distinguish an entity from a characterized entity. >> >> Can you explain what benefits you see in distinguishing entity from >> characterized entity? >> >> So, does it mean in the example, you would say that e1 is same entity as e2? >> Potentially, this could be captured by (the very rough) definition of >> version. >> >> Yes, possibly, I actually first thought that "isRevisionOf" can be used, but >> I think it poses stronger condition that what is needed by "sameEntity". >> >> Regarding your question about the benefits. I think, having "sameEntity()" >> can be used in the definition of IVPof: >> Specifically, in page 10, it is stated that: >> >> "An assertion "B is an IVP of A" holds over the temporal intersection of A >> and B, only if: >> >> if a mapping can be established from an attribute X of B to an attribute Y >> of A, then the values of A and B must be consistent with that mapping >> B has some attribute that A does not have" >> >> I think, if "sameEntity" exists then it can be used as a third condition, to >> make sure that A and B refers to the same entity, otherwise one cannot be an >> IVPof the other. >> >> Also, given a BOB bi, a user may be interested in tracing the history of >> all the BOBs that were used to derive b1 and that refer to the same entity. >> In other words, the query here is give me the history of the entity that bi >> refers to. >> >> khalid >> >> >> >> Luc >> >> On 21/07/2011 20:06, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are >> characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/35 >> >> Raised by: Khalid Belhajjame >> On product: Conceptual Model >> >> >> Do we need a mean to specify that two BOB are characterizations of the same >> entity? >> >> In the initial draft, I think that the editors intentionally avoided >> defining the term "entity" as part of the vocabulary. I don't suggest >> defining that term, but having a means by which one would know that two Bobs >> are characterizations, possibly different, of the same entity, e.g., using >> an assertion like "sameEntity(bob1, bob2)". >> >> I think this will be useful, amongst other things, in the definition of >> IVPof. >> >> Khalid >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 21:07:43 UTC