Re: PROV-ISSUE-35: Section 4: How one would know that two BOBs are characterizations of the same entity? [Conceptual Model]

Actually, the it was other way round (why do we care that BOBs are a concept).

Never mind, I need to offer a proposal.

#g
--

Stephan Zednik wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>