- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:56:13 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- CC: Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Jim McCusker wrote: > I would add that we make it 100% clear that a BOB describes an Entity, > but does not represent it. -1. IMO it does neither. #g -- > Jim > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Luc Moreau <l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> 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 22:00:13 UTC