- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:17:30 -0400
- To: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
- CC: <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Why is something in context not also a valid Entity? - the URL of a version of a report found 'in the wild' on the web would seem to fit your description of a BOB for the report itself, yet it is also a valid Entity by your definition. Jim > > 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
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:18:51 UTC