- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:09:41 -0600
- To: Khalid Belhajjame <Khalid.Belhajjame@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Why is Entity not part of the provenance vocabulary? --Stephan On Jul 21, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: > > 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 21:10:30 UTC