- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:06:19 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Because the title of this email includes "How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity?" If we have a justification for why the model does not need a concept for Entity then it would follow that we do not need to be able to represent an answer to this question. --Stephan On Jul 21, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > Why do we care? > > #g > -- > > 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 22:06:49 UTC