- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:10:05 -0600
- To: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Provenance Working Group WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Nevermind my last comment. The email threading in OSX Lion made it appear that Graham was asking why we care if Entity is a concept in the model, not whether we care about the general question of whether we can know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity. Apologies, --Stephan On Jul 21, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Stephan Zednik wrote: > 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 22:10:54 UTC