- From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:38:40 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi Graham, I don't understand your comment. Are you discussing the difference between entity and entity assertion? Section 5 introduces different types of constructs. Section 4 states that all representations constructed with PIDM are in fact assertions by the asserter. So, when we write "An Entity represents an identifiable characterized thing.", we refer to the construct entity, which allows us in PIDM to build a representation of an identifiable characterized thing. That construct contains an id and attribute-value pairs. So: Entity: is data model construct/assertion Thing: is the thing in world I don't see what is not correct in the issue I raised. Luc On 09/02/2011 12:04 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > Luc, > > I'm picking up a small matter here to illustrate things I've said > previously. > > I notice in ISSUE 89 you say: > > "The conceptual model defines an entity in terms of an identifier and > a list of attribute-value pairs. It is indeed crucial for the asserter > to identify the attributes that have been frozen in a given entity." > > But when I look at > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/ProvenanceModel.html#concept-Entity, > this is not what I see. What I do see is a description of an "Entity > assertion" that contains a list of attribute pairs, which to my > reading is not the same thing at all. > > This is a part of the problem I have when I say the model document is > difficult to understand. > > (I'm not raising this as an issue, as I've already raised a different > issue to say I think that an Entity doesn't need to be so complicated.) > > #g -- Professor Luc Moreau Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 11:39:15 UTC