- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:34:44 +0100
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>
- CC: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jim, To echo Paul, could you illustrate what you need with the example in the document. What is pil:describes? It's also a first to me that we have both pil: Entity *and* pil:BOB. Again, can their need be justified in the example? Regards, Luc On 21/07/11 22:33, Paul Groth wrote: > Hi Jim, > > I think the key thing to do would be to formulate your point in terms of the document put out. > > Paolo and Luc have tried to rectify definitions and in the process made a particular choice in how to describe the model. This may differ from prior assumptions about the model. > > Thanks > Paul > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 22:56, Jim McCusker<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: > > >> I guess what I'm arguing (and have been) is that the concept of Entity >> needs a corresponding class in the model. Anything that is described >> by a BOB is an Entitiy. Let's say that >> http://tw.rpi.edu/person/JamesMcCusker represents me on the semantic >> web, and a description of me might exist somewhere. Let's say it's an >> RDF document that sits out on the web, and is called >> http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/JamesMcCusker. That document refers to my >> URI, and can be said in some way to describe me. We should be able to >> say the following: >> >> http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/JamesMcCusker pil:describes >> http://tw.rpi.edu/person/JamesMcCusker. >> >> That would in turn imply the following: >> >> http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/JamesMcCusker a pil:BOB. >> http://tw.rpi.edu/person/JamesMcCusker a pil:Entitiy. >> >> We can now assert provenance based on that BOB, which is tied to a >> pil:Entity that represents me. >> >> Jim >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Luc Moreau<L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Jim, >>> Can you relate to the document. What is a pil:entity? This construct does not exist. >>> >>> What do you mean by Bob does not represent ...? The definition says it's a representation. >>> >>> I am confused. >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> Professor Luc Moreau >>> Electronics and Computer Science >>> University of Southampton >>> Southampton SO17 1BJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> On 21 Jul 2011, at 21:10, "Jim McCusker"<mccusj@rpi.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I think we're still going around in circles. >>>> >>>> Entity: A thing in the world, can be represented by, for instance, a >>>> URI. That URI, in PIL, is a pil:Entity. >>>> >>>> BOB: A description of an entity constrained by context (including time >>>> and place). The description is not the entity, even within our >>>> information representation. A BOB must be able to refer to something. >>>> That BOB is a description of an entity, but does not REPRESENT the >>>> entity. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Paolo Missier<Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I would advise against using the same terms with different typographical >>>>> convention :-) >>>>> >>>>> what the document perhaps needs to clarify more upfront is that there is a >>>>> "real world" and then a model of it, and the constructs of the language are >>>>> about the model. It does say that but perhaps not strongly enough. >>>>> - Characterized entity belongs in the world >>>>> - BOBs belong in the data model that is a representation of the world. >>>>> These two levels are never conflated. >>>>> >>>>> The good old "record linkage" community (data quality in databases) never >>>>> had any qualms about using "real-world entities", as in "reconciling >>>>> different records (BOBs?) that represent the same real-world entity". >>>>> In their world (pun intended :-)), a record is a very concrete data >>>>> structure that sits in a data store and you can display on a screen. >>>>> Now, we cannot use "record", we have ruled out "information(al) resource"... >>>>> but isn't that basically the territory? >>>>> Entity representation? >>>>> >>>>> -Paolo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/21/11 8:33 PM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Khalid, >>>>> OK. This said we have over 20 occurrences of "characterized entity" in the >>>>> text. >>>>> >>>>> We can't simply use the "expansion" everywhere. Having some terminology is >>>>> desirable. >>>>> >>>>> Do you have a suggestion? >>>>> >>>>> We could also go for a typographic difference: >>>>> BOB -> CharacterizedEntity >>>>> and we keep 'characterized entity' elsewhere. >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>> >>>>> On 21/07/2011 20:27, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Luc, >>>>> >>>>> I guess I used the wrong term, "interchangeable". I guess that what I meant >>>>> is that "Characterized Entity" can be considered as a candidate to replace >>>>> "BOB". Of course, in that case, we will need to avoid the usage of the the >>>>> term "characterized entity" in the core of the definition. E.g., we can use >>>>> the following definition: >>>>> >>>>> A "Characterized Entity" is a description of the situation of an entity in >>>>> the world. >>>>> >>>>> Or something in these lines. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, khalid >>>>> >>>>> On 21/07/2011 19:54, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Khalid, >>>>> >>>>> As far as I know, they are *not* interchangeable. One is the language >>>>> construct, the other is "in the world". >>>>> >>>>> cf. definition: >>>>> >>>>> A BOB represents an identifiable >>>>> characterized entity. >>>>> >>>>> Should we go for "Characterized Entity", we need a typographic >>>>> convention to distinguish between >>>>> >>>>> the construct and the world-thing, otherwise, the reader will never >>>>> know whether this is language construct >>>>> >>>>> or not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>> >>>>> On 21/07/2011 19:45, Khalid Belhajjame wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In the Provenance Model initial draft, the terms "Bob" and "characterized >>>>> entity" are used interchangeably. >>>>> Characterized entity seems then to be a candidate for replacing BOB. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, khalid >>>>> >>>>> On 21/07/2011 19:30, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> PROV-ISSUE-30 (name-for-bob): What name do we use for the BOB construct? >>>>> [Conceptual Model] >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/30 >>>>> >>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>> On product: Conceptual Model >>>>> >>>>> How do we call the construct referred to as BOB. "BOB" was introduced as a >>>>> placeholder at F2F1. Before F2F1, we use to refer to it as thing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ----------- ~oo~ -------------- >>>>> Paolo Missier - Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk, pmissier@acm.org >>>>> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK >>>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jim >>>> -- >>>> Jim McCusker >>>> Programmer Analyst >>>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >>>> Yale School of Medicine >>>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >>>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >>>> >>>> PhD Student >>>> Tetherless World Constellation >>>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >>>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >>>> http://tw.rpi.edu >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jim >> -- >> Jim McCusker >> Programmer Analyst >> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics >> Yale School of Medicine >> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330 >> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu >> >> PhD Student >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu >> http://tw.rpi.edu >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 22:35:36 UTC